Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WESTMINSTER ABBEY BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [Lords]

Order for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

DUNDEE HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Comprehensive Education

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which local education authorities have not now declared their intention of changing over to comprehensive education

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Seven local education authorities have declined to commit themselves to the completion of comprehensive reorganisation in their areas. These are Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Kingston, Redbridge, Trafford and Sutton.

Mrs. Short: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive reply. Is he aware that he has corrected the ill-informed and ill-advised claim of the Opposition that one-third of local education authorities have refused to reorganise their secondary education on comprehensive lines? Will he ensure that his Department puts the utmost pressure on these authorities to see that they bring the benefits of comprehensive education to all pupils in the secondary age group without any more delay?

Mr. Mulley: My predecessor and I between us saw representatives of all seven authorities and asked them to put to their councils the points we made to them. They readily agreed to do this and we are awaiting their replies. While it is true that only seven have declined to commit themselves to the principle of comprehensive reorganisation, there are a number of others which will find it difficult to complete the reorganisation for a number of years.

Mr. Townsend: Why does the Minister, like his predecessor, so dislike excellence in education? Many of the local authorities he has referred to were recently elected on a platform of maintaining these schools. Is he aware that in my part of the world, in South-East London, we have very wide support among all sections of the community?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman seeks to prejudge his question. I do not accept that excellence in education is an exclusive characteristic of a particular kind of school. One test of academic excellence is the attainment of high grades in A levels, and these are frequently achieved in comprehensive schools.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend realise that for many pupils the real difference is whether they go to a comprehensive school which was formerly a grammar school or to a comprehensive school which was formerly a secondary modern school? Will he exhort local education authorities to do everything in their power to make sure that the nominal equality of schools is made real?

Mr. Mulley: Certainly. This message has been conveyed to local authorities. Detailed arrangements within a particular area are a matter for the discretion of the local authorities, but unless selection at the age of 11 is ended there will not be any kind of equality of opportunity in education.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Why is the Minister so coy in refraining from correcting the error of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? Is he afraid of her? Why does he not repeat to her the figure he gave me in his letter of 7th July that no fewer that 30 education authorities have made clear that they have no intention of going comprehensive before the end of the decade? Does not this mean that at least one-third of local education authorities are resisting this policy? Will the Minister confirm that they have a perfect legal right to do so?

Mr. Mulley: Far from being afraid of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) I have the most harmonious relationship with her not only here but also on a number of committees. As to the letter I sent the hon. Gentleman, I thought he might raise this subject and I have brought a copy of the letter with me. Precise as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East always is, she asked how many authorities had not declared their intention to change over to comprehensive education. The 30 authorities have accepted that they should change over but for a number of reasons,

including difficulties about buildings, particularly in rural areas, have not yet been able to put a date on when this will be completed. There is a whole lot of difference between refusing to accept a principle and accepting a principle.

Direct Grant Schools

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether any plans have been made to ensure that when direct grant schools go independent in 1976, parents of pupils at present at such schools will not have to pay more in fees than they would have done if these schools had maintained their present status.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Yes. This is clear from the Department's letter of 1st May.

Miss Fookes: Does the Minister accept that it is not very clear to me? Will she please elucidate?

Miss Lestor: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has had a copy of the letter. If she has, she will have found that it made the situation perfectly clear. We have done our best to explain carefully that in the direct grant schools which have elected to go independent the pupils for whom fees are being paid will not have to pay more than they would have paid had they remained at the direct grant schools. This is carefully spelt cut in the letter. I will send the hon. Member a copy with an explanation if the matter is still unclear to her.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ending of direct grant schools is likely to increase rather than decrease the inequalities in, educational opportunity unless and until all independent schools are brought within the local authority system?

Miss Lestor: When we said that we were going to deal with the direct grant schools, we said that we would give them a choice to go independent or come into the maintained sector. I agree that if we are to get rid of selection as such we shall not eliminate inequality in education while the independent sector remains.

Sir G. Sinclair: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to ensure that the grants.


and capitation fees payable to direct grant schools during the phasing-out period retain their real value in the face of inflation.

Miss Joan Lestor: None.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will not the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend take another look at this matter? Do they not realise what has taken place since their predecessors pegged these rates in 1972? Even from April 1973 to May 1975 the cost of living increased by 45·9 per cent. That has completely eroded the grants that are given to these schools. Does the hon. Lady realise that this can only be to the disadvantage of the schools, the staff and the young people involved?

Mess Lestor: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have taken into account certain areas where grants are payable. As he knows, pupils already in the schools—in particular in the schools which have elected to go independent—will receive grants and will be eligible for fee remission in the way that I have explained previously. As regards the other schools and whatever the truth may be about inflation, given that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are constantly talking about a cut-back in public expenditure I would have thought that this was one area in which they would have welcomed a cut-back.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the priority should be to maintain the real value of the capitation allowance within the State system, particularly in view of the fact that the present Government have made sure in real and cash terms that there is a higher rate support grant for that purpose than ever before?

Miss Lestor: That is obviously right. When talking about a distribution of money that is available for education, one would have hoped to have heard as much talk and as much urging on behalf of the State sector as one hears about grants and increased fees for the direct grant schools.

Mr. Mates: Will the hon. Lady now answer what she totally failed to answer in response to an earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes)— namely, that in the short term her plans for direct grant schools will dis-

criminate against the children of poorer parents and in favour of the children of better-off parents? Is this not totally against her stated policy?

Miss Lestor: I fail to see that the policy of telling the direct grant schools either to go independent or to go into the State sector discriminates against those who are poorest. They have the whole of the State sector, a sector which offers an excellent education service. If parents are concerned about the standard of education within that sector, the best thing they can do is to get their children into it and improve it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend take positive steps of discrimination to protect the interests of children now being taught in substandard conditions in secondary modern schools, and make every effort she can to move rapidly towards a comprehensive system so that children who are now subject to selection can have a chance of real education which they do not have at present?

Miss Lestor: My hon. Friend knows that I totally agree with her in that respect.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he received during the month of June 1975 from parents and other interested persons protesting against Government policy towards direct grant schools; and what replies he sent.

Miss Joan Lestor: About 2,000. The replies have explained that the Government's decision follows from their commitment to end selection for secondary education.

Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Lady reconsider the answer she gave earlier to the hon. Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) in which she suggested that because of the interests of social engineering she will consider banning independent education as well as direct grant schools?

Miss Lestor: I should not like to reconsider my answer—namely, that while there is an independent sector of education the commitment to selection is only a half-truth. This is why we are getting rid of direct grant schools in the way in which they now stand.

Mr. Rose: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if there were an equally articulate and powerful lobby in regard to education in general rather than on direct grant schools in particular, we might see an increase in the general standard of education, and that as long as the more privileged parents opt to take their children out of the State sector there will be deprivation in education?

Miss Lestor: I agree with most of my hon. Friend's remarks. I wish to add that it is to be expected that parents whose financial interests will be affected by the Government's decision on direct grant schools will protest about the matter.

School Milk

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the reintroduction of free school milk for children from eight to 11 years.

Mr. Mulley: I have nothing to add to the reply given to similar Questions by the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) and Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 17th June.—[Vol, 893, c. 1167–8.]

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend's answer is unsatisfactory and disappointing. Does he not recall the words used in 1971 by my hon. Friend who is now the Under-Secretary when she led a very impressive and vigorous opposition to the legislation? Are not the words she used then relevant today? Does he not accept that many of the children who are most deprived are those who come from the poorest homes and are the people we are supposed to represent? Does he accept that it is unreasonable to expect children to go a whole day with nothing to drink but water, a situation which would give rise to an immediate walk-out if it happened in a factory or office? Does my right hon. Friend therefore appreciate that my hon. Friends and I would like to see the immediate reintroduction of free school milk?

Mr. Mulley: The immediate reintroduction of free school milk would not be possible because legislation would be necessary, and I am sure it has not escaped my hon. Friend's attention that there is a noticeable shortage of parlia-

mentary time. We are not able to anticipate what may be in the next Queen's Speech. Equally, the economic situation means that certain restraints have to be exercised. It is against the background of these problems that we are nevertheless considering what we may be able to do.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it still a matter of principle on the Government benches to reintroduce school milk for these children at some time in the future?

Mr. Mulley: I thought that what I said was fairly clear. I said that against the background of the parliamentary and economic situation we were considering what we could do.

Open University (Fees and Grants)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he hopes to complete his review of financial assistance to students at the Open University; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will make a statement on the discussions his Department is having with the Open University concerning increased course fees.

Mr. Mulley: My Department's discussions with the Open University are concerned primarily with the proposal to increase the course tuition fee from the academic year 1976. I hope that these will be completed soon. Financial assistance to students at the Open University is given by local education authorities using their discretionary powers.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Department have any evidence that those in the lower income groups are seriously disadvantaged in attempting to do these university courses?

Mr. Mulley: We have no firm evidence to that effect but quite clearly in considering the position of the Open University I would not wish the fees to push courses beyond the means of any students. We have not yet settled how best to meet that objective, but clearly we need to put up the fees. They represented only some 10 per cent. of the cost in 1973 when they were last increased, and now they represent only 8 per cent. of the cost.


I fear that, in line with practically everything else, we have to consider some increases.

Mr. Marten: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is no added burden on students of the Open University who are so disabled as to be unable to go to an ordinary university?

Mr. Mulley: It is because of these difficult cases that my noble Friend is having discussions with the Open University to see whether we can find a better way than imposing a pure flat-rate increase across the board.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend realise that an increase in students' fees might mean that more students will take one course instead of one and a half or two courses a year, and that that development might be used by the Open University as an excuse for not increasing the number of new student places, as is threatened for next year? In the discussions with the Open University will he press the importance of taking on 20,000 new students next year and not reducing the number to 16,000, as has been speculated?

Mr. Mulley: I shall certainly convey those views, and certainly we shall want to secure an arrangement which will bring in a little more money without producing the kind of circumstance to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mrs. Bain: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that any increase in the fees for the Open University will mean that people on fixed incomes, such as working-class people and housewives, will have to terminate their studies, and that this will mean that the Open University is no longer an open university? When he says that local authorities have the right to award grants to students, will he bear in mind his Government's cut-back on local authority expenditure which means that many local authorities will not make this subject a priority in their spending?

Mr. Mulley: I do not understand what the hon. Member said about working people on fixed incomes. The rate of increase proposed would be, at the maximum, very much less than the average increase in earnings and other income. As for local authority assistance, in the pre-

sent year the rate support grant given to local authorities for education and other purposes is higher than it has ever been.

Direct Grant (Abolition)

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he now expects to lay before Parliament the necessary statutory regulations for the abolition of the direct grant.

Mr. Mulley: As soon as possible.

Mr. Sims: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the present economic situation there is no possible justification for laying upon local authorities the additional financial burden that would be involved in taking over the direct grant schools? Does he intend to ignore the very strong representation made on this matter to hon. Members in all parts of the House? Is he aware of the grave reservations about the wisdom of his policy which exist among members of the Labour Party throughout the country, a number of whom send their children to direct grant schools? Will he abandon these ridiculous proposals?

Mr. Mulley: I quite understand the very strong opposition which comes from parents and others who are getting substantial benefit from direct grant schools by sending their children to what is virtually independent private education at below the normal cost, an advantage which is conferred only in certain areas. There are only 173 of these schools, and it is by no means certain that the additional cost falling on local education authorities will be substantial, but overall it could well work out that what we save in grant will be sufficient to pay the additional costs. We shall have to see.

Youth Services

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in order to increase the representation of young people in his present talks with youth organisations, he will invite young staff and volunteers from Young Volunteers of Merseyside.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Hugh Jenkins): As I stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 14th May —[Vol. 892, c. 115.]—if the discussions now taking place with youth service


interests suggest the need for further consultations, to include other groups of young people, I shall seek to arrange them. These discussions are nearing conclusion, but it is not too late for the young volunteers of Merseyside to submit written evidence.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the nation's youth is anxiously waiting for him as the nation's youth leader-in-chief to make up his mind whether he is to have a youth policy or not, and is he aware that some steps must be taken by the Government to reduce the effects, which are found throughout our society, of negative discrimination against young people?

Mr. Jenkins: I am happy to say that I have so long left youth behind as not to nurture the illusions which still possess the hon. Gentleman. It seems that he still thinks himself to be in the position of a youth leader. Perhaps in some senses he is. I assure him in that sense—not in the sense of being myself a youth, except possibly in spirit—that when the Government came to power we found that no preparation had been made for dealing with the problems which beset the youth service. Discussions are taking place with the purpose of enabling the Government to make up their minds in a manner acceptable to youth itself.

Teachers (Employment)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the anticipated number of unemployed teachers in September 1975 and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement about employment prospects for newly-trained teachers.

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers qualifying this summer he estimates will be unemployed at the opening of the next school year.

Mr. Mulley: The rate support grant settlement for 1975–76 allowed for continuing improvement in pupil-teacher ratios and took account of this summer's output of trained teachers. While it is too early to have a clear indication, there

are signs that some unemployment may arise.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a very serious reply? Does he appreciate that in spite of the generous rate support grant some local education authorities are cutting tack on education expenditure? Does he accept that some teachers are finding difficulty in obtaining jobs? Does he recognise that in areas with very old buildings, such as West Yorkshire, smaller classes are an important element in improving education? Does he not accept that the employment of teachers should have much higher priority than, for example, expenditure on defence and on roads?

Mr. Mulley: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of expenditure on education. As he knows, we have done our best to draw to the attention of local authorities the vacancies that now exist for teachers and also to urge them, given that they have been provided with funds, to spend their funds on education. I have no direct plans to intervene either in the employment of teachers or in discussions about the organisation of comprehensive education within local authority areas.

Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great concern about this matter in the heavily populated urban areas? Will he confirm that the effect of the cash limits to be imposed either before the House rises or after it has risen will be made clear at the earliest possible moment, so that local authorities with a heavy range of educational problems will know exactly where they stand?

Mr. Mulley: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about cash limits, but the fact is that for the present year we have provided within the rate support grant sufficient funds, as we saw it after consultation with the local authorities, for the authorities between them to employ all the teachers likely to be available next September.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the problematic employment situation for teachers, and bearing in mind that Wales produces far more teachers per capita than other areas of the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a good idea to advise pupils in Welsh schools not to go into teaching but to


go into other careers where there is a greater chance of obtaining employment in Wales and a greater chance of contributing to the Welsh economy?

Mr. Mulley: I shall get into trouble, not least with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, if I seek to give advice direct to Welsh schools, which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Roderick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that with class sizes at their present levels it is disastrous to have any teachers unemployed? Will he think again about continuing the policy of the previous administration as regards the training of teachers and reducing the number of college of education places? We desperately need more teachers, not least to bring class levels to the size that we require.

Mr. Mulley: At a time when there is a likelihood of some unemployment of teachers, it is not sensible to ignore the number of intending teachers and the number of teachers as of now. We have to consider the situation in September 1976. It was for that reason that I asked the advisory committee to consider again the proposed number of teachers for September 1976.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the right hon. Gentleman being extraordinarily complacent when he is faced with a teacher unemployment problem in the autumn that is likely to be the gravest since the war? Is he aware that the NUT estimates that there will be 5,000 unemployed teachers? Does he agree that part of the responsibility for this situation rests upon the local authorities which are not taking up their teacher quotas? I know of at least five which are not doing so. Will he tell the House how many local authorities are not taking up their quotas, and will he urge them and the other local authorities to take up their quotas in full? If they are to practise economies, will he urge the authorities to practise them on the kind of extravagances which we read about in this week's Sunday Telegraph?

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for at least getting his figures right. This is the gravest teacher un-

employment situation since the war because it is the first time that unemployment among teachers has arisen since the war. Normally we have experienced a period of constant shortage, so I repeat that at least the hon. Gentleman has his facts right. I am encouraged by his suggestion that we should make representations to the local authorities, but he must also understand that his request that I should intervene in these matters is inconsistent with his objection to my seeking to intervene in the reorganisation of schools.

Capital Expenditure

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement on the effects of public expenditure reductions on his Department's capital spending programme.

Mr. Mulley: I hope shortly to announce capital programmes for 1976–77.

Mr. Huckfield: I accept that answer from my right hon. Friend but does he appreciate that many local authorities have still not worked out in detail the effects of the last round of public expenditure cuts? Does he now feel able to say something about the effect on his Department's spending of the proposed cash-limits philosophy?

Mr. Mulley: That would be a rather tall order in answer to a supplementary question. The idea of the cash limit is simple—namely, that if local authorities pay wage increases beyond the sum agreed in the voluntary pay policy they will suffer deductions from the rate support grant which they receive in respect of those payments.

Mr. Peter Walker: In terms of total public expenditure does the Secretary of State expect teachers to obtain the full £6 increase in the coming year? If so, what will be the effect on public expenditure?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot say what the position will be next year. The settlement date next year will not be until 1st April. It will be a matter for negotiation. I would expect the teachers—I may be wrong—to ask for the full £6. We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When my right hon. Friend considers his proposals, will he bear in mind the difficulties already confronting stress areas, particularly areas of grave housing shortage, areas with large immigrant populations and areas where there is a shortage of teachers? Does he appreciate that in some areas children are unable to receive full-time schooling? Will he ensure that such areas receive additional help and that there are no cuts in Newham, Haringey and similar areas?

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend knows that in working out allocations allowance has been made for the factors he has mentioned. It is too early to know whether other authorities will require their full quota, but if they do not this should give the opportunity to certain authorities to recruit the necessary additional teachers.

Mr. Lane: Can the Secretary of State confirm that depite the total cuts he will continue to discriminate positively in favour of deprived urban areas, which on the capital side contain many inadequate schools overdue for replacement or improvement?

Mr. Mulley: I am well aware of these problems. Our policy is to continue to help as far as we can, especially in such areas as the hon. Gentleman has outlined.

Assessment of Performance Unit

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to establish the Assessment of Performance Unit announced by his predecessor.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that Professor Barry Supple of the University of Sussex has agreed to be the chairman of the consultative committee for this unit. My right hon. Friend will announce the membership of the committee when he has completed his discussions with the interested educational bodies.

Mrs. Chalker: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Will she give an estimate of the time when the Assessment of Performance Unit will make its first report? The unit is vital if the standards of children are not to fall behind. We earnestly await her answer.

Miss Lestor: It is impossible for me to say when the unit will make any report because we have not yet completed discussions, but the unit will be set up. It is about to be set up and it is expected that as soon as the membership has been completed it will start work, possibly in the autumn.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that certain suggestions concerning annual examinations in regard to basic skills would not be helpful in the present educational system? Will there be encouragement for teachers in certain schools to attempt some assessment of attainment of basic skills whatever the learning methods used in the schools?

Miss Lestor: Any attempts at assessment can be valuable, as long as they are not undertaken on the basis of set examinations.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the hon. Lady aware that nearly six months have passed since her predecessor announced the setting up of this important unit at the suggestion of the Opposition? Will she guarantee that the unit will start work while she is still in her present office?

Miss Lestor: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the proposal got off the ground very quickly after I arrived on the scene. I have every reason to suppose that the unit will have started its work before I leave.

Brentwood

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he Will pay an early visit to Brentwood.

Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. McCrindle: If the Secretary of State or the hon. Lady decides to visit Brentwood, will he or she take the opportunity to visit two excellent direct grant schools in the area and explain to teachers why the Government appear to be hell bent on eliminating two educational institutions which not only cover all social classes but which, by common consent, provide excellent education for all children who attend them?

Miss Lestor: If I may deal with a hypothetical question in a hypothetical way, if I were to visit Brentwood I should consult the hon. Gentleman, but since


we are hell bent on changing the system of direct grant schools they will no longer exist when I make my visit.

Shenstone College and Bromsgrove College of Education

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in the light of the decision of the Hereford and Worcester County Council he will now make a statement on the, future of Shenstone College and the previously approved merger with the Bromsgrove College of Education.

Miss Joan Lestor: My right hon. Friend has yet to be notified of the county council's decision.

Mr. Miller: Because the county council's decision, taken last week, offered no recommendation to the Secretary of State, will the hon. Lady now accept that the Government's previous decision should be allowed to stand so that there will be some continuity in Government policies? Will the Government accept responsibility for that decision rather than put the matter on the shoulders of the county council?

Miss Lestor: We have not yet been notified about what the hon. Gentleman says will be the county council's decision. We must take that matter into account when we are officially informed of these matters. However, I cannot possibly take account of a decision which may or may not exist until we have had an official communication from the county council in question.

Mr. Freud: Since the hon. Lady appears to be saying that there are no statistics available, even though they appeared the other evening, and since the Government now seem to be shooting the pigeons that deliver the mail from the county councils, is it not time that the Department spent a little more money on gearing up the statistical services so that we may have up-to-date information?

Miss Lestor: I have no evidence at all that the letter was posted or which stamp it had on it.

Disabled Students (Facilities)

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

information he collects from local education authorities about the facilities they provide for disabled students; if he is satisfied that all authorities are complying with Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 in this respect; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Joan Lestor: It is for local education authorities to decide what provision it is practicable and reasonable to make to enable disabled pupils and students to use the buildings which they maintain. Details of such provision are shown on those plans for new buildings for special schools and other schools and colleges which are submitted to my Department for approval. I am satisfied that authorities have a proper regard for their responsibilities under Section 8 of the Act.

Mr. Price: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply, which we have had many times before. What reason does she have for being satisfied? If she were to read Section 8 of the Act she would discover that the word "shall" holds a key position. Will she accept that I know of a number of colleges which claim to have adequate facilities for disabled students but the facilities are totally inadequate and disabled students survive in those institutions only because of certain members of the staff who make heroic efforts to care for them? Therefore, the Act is not being implemented.

Miss Lestor: Plans for new buildings have, as I have said, to be submitted to my Department and we have to approve them. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about this matter. We are all concerned that disabled pupils should have every possible advantage in education and in educational institutions. If the hon. Gentleman has details of colleges or other establishments which he believes are not fulfilling their obligations under Section 8, I shall be happy to receive them and discuss them with him.

Mr. Hannam: Is the hon. Lady aware that paragraph 3 in Circular 13/70 clearly states that in many new primary schools and extensions to secondary schools provisions for disabled people such as ramped entrances and special toilet entrances for wheelchairs are not being provided? Will she accept responsibility for this?

Miss Lestor: I have already said that if hon. Members draw my attention to areas where the provisions of the Act are not being implemented—and I do not doubt that hon. Members are concerned about the situation in their constituencies —I shall be pleased to look into the matter and ensure that the machinery for carrying out the spirit of the Act is implemented.

Polytechnics

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to achieve more economical deployment of skilled teaching manpower in the polytechnics.

Mr. Mulley: The initial employment of staff is essentially a matter for the governing body of a college and its grant-aiding authority; and the deployment of staff in post a matter for the institution itself. But it is essential that authorities and polytechnics economise in the use of resources, and I shall continue to promote this objective in every way I can.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a rather extravagant use of highly-skilled and extremely expensive manpower to tolerate steps in the ratios 1:5 and 1:6, because even the universities are prepared to put up with a ratio of 1:8? Will he look into this problem with a view to making the situation more satisfactory?

Mr. Mulley: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. Some of the difficulties stem from the terms and conditions for staff that were negotiated between the local authority associations and the unions concerned, a matter in which I have no status to intervene. I shall endeavour to find out whether there are any steps we can usefully take in the direction that my hon. Friend has indicated.

Dr. Hampson: In the same way as the Secretary of State's predecessor acknowledged that the cost per unit in a polytechnic was no longer as cheap as it was at a university, as was once thought by the Department, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the strategy that the Department is pursuing? There is great concern that there is no overall plan against which, for example, cuts can be properly formulated. What is the

Department's thinking about post-education? Will the Minister set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter?

Mr. Mulley: I do not believe that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be the best way of considering all the matters that we are likely to encounter. In relation to the detailed administration of polytechnics, we simply cannot have on the one hand academic independence and on the other freedom of discretion of local authorities if I am expected to intervene even in detailed matters, for example the deployment of staff. Conservative Members must make up their minds whether they want local authorities to have freedom of discretion or not.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are short of highly skilled people in industry? If the ratio of students to lecturers is too low in our polytechnics, will he make certain that more places are made availble to students so that eventually we get more scientists and technologists?

Mr. Mulley: I understand my hon. Friend's desire that the polytechnics and technical institutions should train more scientists and technicians. As far as we can, we shall encourage those institutions to do so. At present I am not aware of any great under-utilisation of their facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech at the Royal Agricultural Show on 30th June on economic matters.

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June 1975.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters made at the Royal Agricultural show on 30th June.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic and agricultural matters at the Royal Agricultural Show at Stoneleigh on 30th June 1975.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I did so later that day, Sir.

Mr. Hurd: Does not the Prime Minister agree on reflection that in that terrible speech and its successors he once again missed a great opportunity? Is he aware that many millions of people in this country who now realise the seriousness of our situation are not in the least interested in his manoeuvres and compromises as Leader of the Labour Party but are still waiting desperately to hear the authentic voice and language of a Prime Minister addressed to the nation as a whole?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I failed to speak out on that occasion and on several others in that fortnight, I should remind him of what I said. I said:
The Government will take whatever action is necesssary to fortify the efforts which industry is so plainly making, as we have witnessed by the deep sense of urgency shown in this past week and more from the management confederation and from the Trades Union Congress.
I then rejected the kind of solutions that have been put forward in some quarters, though not by the Conservative Front Bench. I said:
The solutions we apply, and they will not lack courage and determination, must above all be workable.
That is what we did last Friday.
In relation to manoeuvres I was concerned—despite the chivvying of Conservative Members—to get something broadly acceptable throughout industry. That is what we have achieved.

Mr. Skinner: Why was it that my right hon. Friend changed his mind so suddenly after making his speech at the Royal Agricultural Show? Was it because a group of politically motivated sheikhs was threatening to withdraw its Arabian

gold? Is it not sad—tragic—that we have a Labour Government headed by my right hon. Friend who are prepared to travel the same dismal, dreary course that was travelled between 1966 and 1970? Faced with either changing the system or propping up capitalism, is it not a fact that the Government have now decided to placate once again the natural enemies of the Labour movement?

The Prime Minister: We did not change the policy. The policy announced last Friday was what we were working on. We wanted to get agreement on it. My hon. Friend said that we are prepared to travel the same course as was travelled between 1966 and 1970. It was very clear from my statement last Friday that we are travelling the same course as the organised trade union movement of this country. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is travelling the same course.

Mr. Morrison: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his rejection of the use of unemployment as a weapon against inflation with the passage in the White Paper which states that
excessive pay settlements will affect unemployment in the industry concerned"?

The Prime Minister: Because we reject the deflationary proposals of the monetarists on the benches opposite who may or may not have a majority of influence in the Conservative Party. We have rejected the idea that has been put forward—not specifically by leaders of the Conservative Party—in sections of the Press that we deliberately ran down the economy to a low level of employment. The whole world is facing an increase in unemployment today. Unemployment has risen less in Britain than in most other countries. We reject it as an instrument of policy.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister explain one part of the White Paper which was foreshadowed in the speech and has since appeared before the House, namely, what happens if a firm refuses to pay more than £6 a week in increased wages to its working force and then has industrial action taken against it?

The Prime Minister: I made plain last week that the firm would have the whole organised trade union movement on its side. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may laugh about that, but if


they had paid a little more attention to getting such an arrangement a few years ago there might have been a very different situation today. Secondly, as I said in my statement last Friday, if there were a real threat to the policy which we have announced, we would not hesitate to introduce the statutory powers—we would do so with great regret, and I think that is true of many Opposition Members—that we would feel to be necessary.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the last few weeks the trade union movement has moved further towards voluntary agreement than ever before and that the trade union movement and the country would not deal lightly with Opposition Members who seek to exploit the nation's economic difficulties for partisan advantage?

The Prime Minister: Sir, it is certainly true that the TUC General Council last week went further than the TUC has ever gone in peace or in war, as I said on Friday. The TUC has done that, and I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would recognise that achievement. Opposition Members who laugh about this are beneath contempt. The whole country, including many who voted for Opposition Members, will be shown to support the policy announced by the Government last Friday, and they will be as anxious as we are to see what alternative policies the Opposition can agree upon.

Mr. Tapsell: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the speech in which he rather obliquely foreshadowed the White Paper which has subsequently been published was greeted almost universally at home and abroad with some satisfaction as re-establishing the credit of sterling internationally but also with the feeling that the Government's policies would be immensely strengthened if they were accompanied by the announcement of cuts in public expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what is said about public expenditure in the White Paper, which I hope the House will be debating next week. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter and catches your eye,

Mr. Speaker, I am sure he will have some valuable considerations to put before the House. Opposition Members at the weekend talked about cutting expenditure. What we should like to see in advance of the debate is some thought being given by the Opposition to precisely what expenditure they would cut.

Mr. Torney: I have read the speech which the Prime Minister made at Stoneleigh in which he expounded at great length on the subject of the expansion of home food production. Will my right hon. Friend please inform the House what steps he proposes to take to ensure that adequate financing is available to support what he said at Stoneleigh about the expansion of food production in Britain?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who is chairman of an important agriculture group in the purlieus of the House, is absolutely right. The main part of my speech was about agriculture. I was referring to the White Paper which was published by the Government earlier this year and to the help to be given under that White Paper. The House debated these matters yesterday.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Prime Minister about a reply which he gave to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel)? Are we to understand that if an employer is driven out of business because he carries out Government policy on the £6 pay limit, he can expect no protection whatsoever from the Government?

The Prime Minister: I made clear that if the policy is in danger—we hope that it will not be—we shall not hesitate to take legislative action. The right hon. Lady will be aware that there has been some discussion in the Press about the possibility of co-operative action among employers on this matter. I do not know what will come of that, but I have made clear that if there is a concerted attack against the policy announced in the White Paper, the Government will not hesitate to introduce further legislation to deal with the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRURO

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Truro.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make an official visit, although, as the hon. Member knows, I am able to keep in close touch with Cornish problems.

Mr. Penhaligon: It will come as a disappointment to the people of Cornwall that the Prime Minister cannot make an official visit. If he had been able to come, I should have liked him to meet many parents in the county who are extremely concerned at the state of the county's primary schools, the vast majority of which were built during the Gladstone era. Will the Prime Minister use his influence to secure that some of the money to be spent on super dual carriageways within 20 and 10 miles of Land's End is spent instead on a major modernisation programme for the county's primary schools?

The Prime Minister: Not all Cornish schools were built in the Gladstonian era. I remember on one day in October 1966 opening seven schools. My sister was the headmistress of one of them. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have very close contacts with the problems of primary education in Cornwall for that and other reasons. I believe that the Cornish local authority, which for a time was regarded as not one of the most advanced, has proceeded very much faster in recent years under successive Governments, but there are still many problems.
As for the balance of expenditure between roads and schools, hon. Members who represent Cornish constituencies are always pressing for improvements in the roads, including bypasses.

Mr. Penhaligon: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: Some are. The balance is a question of public expenditure, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to say that in our review of priorities in public expenditure we have cut back sharply on roads in the interests of education and other priority programmes.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take personal initiatives to secure unity of purpose and policy among the nine member States of the European Community in advance of the summit meeting of the European Conference on Security and Co-operation.

The Prime Minister: I shall be discussing the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe with my colleagues at the European Council later this week. I hope very much that it will be possible to conclude the conference at the summit at the end of the month. I do not think any new initiative is necessary now to secure what has already been widely remarked on: the unity of purpose and policy which the Nine have displayed throughout the preparations for this conference.

Mr. Macmillan: Does the Prime Minister accept that most of us in the House would regard unity of policy and purpose among the nation States of the Community as a very important part of the conference? Will he assure the House that in the follow-up of basket four he will take steps to see that that unity is maintained, particularly in the defence aspect of the conference, which has so far proved to most of us to be somewhat unsatisfactory?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. During the period of preparation for this conference there have been close discussions between the Council of Foreign Ministers and members of the summit, now that we are having regular summit meetings. At Dublin in March, although the discussions were mainly about renegotiations in relation to Britain, we had a special meeting on the evening of the first day to discuss the preparations. That has been carried forward further in the NATO Heads of Government conference and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, although no agenda is published on these occasions, that it is highly likely that this week, tomorrow and on Thursday, we shall be discussing the runup and preparations for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. As to the follow-up, the conference itself


has still to decide its mechanism, timing and so on, but the Nine are already discussing this at Heads of Government level and we shall hope to reach the common purpose and unity of purpose referred to by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to make clear to the House whether he intends to withdraw the Government's objections to those parts of the Bertrand Report relating to defence when he meets his colleagues later in the week, because that is a policy which has not been discussed in the House and which carries considerable implications for all of us?

The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her return from her first attendance at the European Parliament. If I interpret rightly what she says, I think she is expressing the view which I have often expressed, and which is the policy of the Government—that we regard the EEC as exactly what it is and what the country has approved in relation to Britain's membership. We do not regard it as having a defence capability.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does not the Prime Minister agree that his own recent experience with the Soviet Union suggests that we ought to be even more cautious than was previously the case in accepting that country's assurances? He came back from the Soviet Union after his visit telling us all that he had established a new and much better relationship and that there was an altogether improved atmosphere between the two countries, and yet one of the very few countries which actually supported President Amin during the Hills matter was the Soviet Union, and Pravda wrote editorials in support of that action. Does not the Prime Minister agree that this is quite contrary to the understanding he gave the House on Anglo-Soviet relations on his return from Moscow?

The Prime Minister: Not at all. I naturally regret any articles of that kind. There is no ministerial responsibility in this country at any rate for what appears in Pravda, and there is no ministerial responsibility for what appears in the British Press. I reported to the House on the width of the agreement which had been signed, including in particular the

economic co-operation and trade agreements. Since that time what I said in the House then has been abundantly justified and extended in that Mr. Gvishiani, when recently visiting this country, told us that there will be still greater participation by the Soviet trade corporations in the kinds of details I mentioned. He also mentioned some new extended deals and said that on the occasion of his vist he was signing four memoranda of agreement with prominent British firms. That was in full support and extension of what I told the House last February.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY)

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I seek your guidance, because you are are the guardian of every back bencher in this House in helping us to conduct our duties in this place.
The way in which we can conduct our duties in this place or outside depends to a degree on the financial security of a Member of Parliament. We have been told over a long period that it is the intention of the Government to publish, and to make their recommendations on, the report of the Boyle Committee, which, as I understand it, was handed to the Government on 30th June. I want to ask you, Sir, or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is listening to this, how we might get this report—which is, after all, the property of the House of Commons, not only of the Government—and discuss and debate it, so that this saga does not drag on and on and on. Let us have a decision one way or the other.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Further to that point of order In order not to have to invoke you: protection, Mr. Speaker, of the very real interests of hon. Members of this House, may I say that the report will be published tomorrow, together with the Government's recommendations to the House. When Parliament as a whole has had time to consider those recommendations, I hope there will be an opportunity next week for the House to debate them and come to a decision upon them.

BILL PRESENTED

HIGHWAYS

Mr. Ronald Bell, supported by Mr. Michael Shersby and Mr. R. Graham Page presented a Bill to amend the Highways Act 1959: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time to-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

BILL OF RIGHTS

3.35 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject.
—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Will hon. Members withdraw as quickly as possible? Could the conversations take place outside?

Mr. Beith: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker. In seeking the leave of the House to introduce a Bill of Rights I am conscious that I follow in a succession of attempts by Liberal Members to do just this. I am also continuing a wider movement which has been gathering support from Members of all parties to establish and declare the rights and liberties of the individual.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) introduced such a Bill in 1969. My noble Friend Lord Arran introduced a similar Bill in another place in 1970. In a series of newspaper articles Lord Hailsham has revealed his conversion to the belief that we need a Bill of Rights. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Sir Keith Joseph) has stated that such a Bill ought to be part of the Conservative programme. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General introduced into this House, when he was in Opposition in 1971, a Bill to protect human rights, and, although it did not go as far m giving legal force to basic rights, it showed a clear desire to define and formalise those rights.
In Northern Ireland, where deep distrust between the two communities adds to the need for formal protection of civil rights, the Liberal Party's former representative at Stormont, Miss Shelagh Murnaghan, made several attempts to introduce a Bill of Rights. These attempts were opposed by the Unionist Party. Since then—and too late to undo some of the damage which could have been avoided by earlier action on civil rights —our view has been accepted by the Ulster Unionist Party under Mr. Faulkner, by the Alliance Party, by the Republican Clubs and the Civil Rights


Association, and it was given encouragement by the Gardiner Report. It was, indeed, an Ulster Unionist Member, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who gave the House an opportunity to debate this subject a week ago when he put forward a Private Member's motion on the need for a Bill of Rights.
In that debate both Government and Opposition spokesmen were open-minded on the proposal, and the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), who is with us this afternoon, speaking for the Home Office, indicated that Government Departments would study its implications and that the Government would welcome continued public debate on it.
I think that many hon. Members were struck by an influential lecture given by Lord Justice Scarman, in which he said:
So long as English law is unable in any circumstances to challenge a statute it is in dangerous and difficult times at the mercy of the oppressive discriminatory statute. Without a Bill of Rights protected from repeal, amendment or suspension by the ordinary processes of a bare Parliamentary majority controlled by the Government of the day, human rights will be at risk.
We have bitter memories by which to judge that statement. We recall the immigration legislation under which it proved so easy, in a moment of panic, to tear up the rights conferred by British passports. Current discussions on the freedom of the Press under industrial relations legislation demonstrate how important freedoms can be nut at risk as a side effect of a statute with a quite different purpose. Our statute book is cluttered with measures like the Official Secrets Act, which at times of pressure of one sort and another went far further than was necessary in restricting civil rights, and which Governments have been lamentably unwilling to repeal or modify.
While we delay defining civil rights, the processes by which these rights are threatened become more and more rapid. The amount of legislation with which this House deals is getting ever larger. There is less and less time for it to be debated. The scale of bureaucratic interference in the life of the individual is ever greater. The development and use of technology in things such as computers and bugging devices poses ever greater threats to our rights and to our privacy.
We can no longer sit back and see these processes eat away like acid at our civil rights. There are those who oppose the principle of a Bill of Rights on the ground that traditional British respect for freedom is a sufficient safeguard. Recent experience will not allow us to be so corn placent.
There are some things that a Bill of Rights cannot do. It is no safeguard against a tyrannical group prepared and permitted to seize power by violence. It is unlikely to be proof against a general disrespect for basic freedom and civil rights throughout the community, although the exercise of formulating it might help prevent that arising. What it can do, even in its most limited form, is to provide a trip-wire, a check, a process by which Parliament and the community are at least required to think again before abrogating a basic right, even when there is a simple parliamentary majority for doing so.
The extent of the check is one of the important questions to be considered. What form of entrenchment can the Bill include? I share the increasingly widespread belief that we should work towards a new constitutional settlement with a formal written constitution. To some extent we have begun this process by joining the EEC, and we are committed to new constitutional arrangements for Scotland and Wales and maybe for Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights would form a natural part of the instrument by which we define the relationships between the various institutions of Government.
However, at this stage I seek only to establish a procedure similar to that in the Canadian Bill of Rights, under which no future legislation can be interpreted as overriding the Bill of Rights unless it contains an express provision to that effect. Although the courts would thus be enabled to review legislation to determine whether it was unconstitutional, parliamentary sovereignty would remain where a clear and politically more difficult decision had been taken that it should not be abrogated.
The other major problem is that of content. Although it should be easy to obtain agreement on the main provisions which should be included in a Bill of Rights, one can imagine that in the Com-


mittee stage, in which we discuss the detail of each provision, the proceedings could go on for ever. It is partly for that reason that I feel that it would be better to take as a starting point something to which we have committed ourselves already. The European Convention on Human Rights provides a range of rights which we ought long ago to have incorporated into British law and to which we are already committed by international agreement. It would be possible to add to those rights. But I propose to make them the basis of my Bill and thereby to achieve their incorporation into our own legal system.
I hope that the House will agree that to have such a Bill introduced and printed will be a means of carrying further this very important debate on human rights. Should it be opposed, I hope that I shall have the support of all hon. Members in all parties who see a Bill of Rights as at least worthy of consideration as a means of safeguarding the liberties which so often are threatened.
In the debate the other week, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that
from time to time in politics there were South Sea bubbles. In such instances, projects of an undefined character—projects of which the details are to be revealed later, as the South Sea promoters said—become the subject of unthinking and infectious enthusiasm before their content has been considered.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to acquit me of that charge by not opposing this motion—and I am glad to see that he is not even in his place to do so—and thereby confirming my belief that we should have an opportunity to see a printed Bill of Rights setting out the provisions of the European Convention so that we might at least have an opportunity to discuss them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. David Steel, and Mr. Russell Johnston.

BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. A. J. Beith accordingly presented a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 214].

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[28th ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. John Ellis.]

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION CONFERENCE

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: The subject which the Opposition have chosen to discuss today is the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe—the CSCE, to add to the already tangled mass of initials in foreign affairs.
I recognise that this is not the ideal day to choose. I am sorry about it. But the exigencies of parliamentary business meant that this was the only time that we could have the debate. At any rate, we had during Question Time today a statement from the Prime Minister that throughout these complex negotiations the Nine had been working very closely together. We regard this as being of great importance. But it is a pity that the Foreign Secretary, who is abroad on an important mission, cannot be here, although I see that he is extremely well represented. It is also a pity that we have to debate this matter before the documents are available from the discussions that have taken place. But this was the only opportunity available to the Opposition to raise this matter before the Helsinki Conference, and we felt that it would be wrong for that conference to take place without any discussion in this House of the issues involved.
After all, they are very big issues—at least, they seem likely to be. A conference of 35 Heads of Government of the European countries, East and West, plus the United States and Canada, is a really prestigious one. I see from a Press report recently that someone has likened it to the Congress of Vienna. It would be wrong for this conference to take place without this House having some opportunity to discuss what is going on and what line our own Government should take at the conference.
The difficulty is to know what has been going on. No doubt for good reasons of confidentiality, very little has emerged from the discussions. We hope today that the Minister of State will tell us as much as possible of the details of the discussions that have been taking lace.
The situation is strange, if not bizarre. Here we have an enormous gathering of 35 Heads of Government—probably the biggest conference of Heads of Government in history—and we know nothing about it. I suggest that if any hon. Member cared to ask a man on an omnibus in Tooting or Balham what he knew about the CSCE, there would not be a very clear answer forthcoming. What is more, we as Members of Parliament are hardly in a position to enlighten our constituents about it because we have not been told very much about it. In the view of the Opposition, we should be told a great deal more about it before the final conference takes place and before the final agreement is signed.
The other strange feature to me is that it appears to be agreed by all concerned that every single detail must be tied up in advance. No one will go to the conference without being satisfied that the texts of the agreements are acceptable to everyone. In that case, what are the 35 Heads of Government to do about it? It seems very strange to propose bringing 35 such prominent people together merely to endorse a document that has been agreed in advance. Of course, there will be opportunities for discussions in corridors outside the main meetings, but we must be careful in looking at an occasion of this kind to avoid the cynicism about and the devaluation of meetings of Heads of Government which can take place unless we are careful.
We live in a strange world. On television at lunch time today there was a programme about the launching of the Russian spacecraft in this quite extraordinary joint venture with the United States which apparently is to reach its consummation 140 miles vertically above Bognor Regis, which itself is surprising. But this is a very large step forward in international relations and, despite the strangeness of the circumstances, we must remember that what we are discussing today is deadly serious. Nothing matters more for the future of mankind than the relations between East and West.
At present, the peace is maintained by the precarious balance of terror, as it is called—the knowledge of both sides that if they commit aggression they will commit suicide at the same moment. That is the present preservation of peace. It is not satisfactory, and it must be replaced as soon as possible.
Therefore, I say on behalf of my party that we are fully committed to the concepts of détente and of disarmament. Nothing else is rational. The only objective for a rational man is peace with his neighbours and disarmament. Therefore, anything that will promote peace and understanding between the nations of Europe and North America obviously will have our support. I wish to say that clearly and categorically at the start of this debate.
I must also say that this commitment to détente and disarmament does not mean that we should suspend our critical faculty. We must exercise a sense of realism in looking at all the measures which come before us. This House does not make a man good by an Act of Parliament, and we do not restrain aggressors by a scrap of paper. If any nation or group of men had the wickedness to conceive the idea of launching a new war, they would not be deterred by any considerations of a treaty. We must be realistic about that.
The only way that we can hope to prevent war in the future is by removing the desire to make war and by taking away the prospects of success from anyone who makes war. At the moment, the nuclear balance of terror does both. It removes the desire to make war, and it makes it clear that the prospects of success do not exist. But we must find a better substitute for the balance of terror to achieve this objective.
It is against that background that I consider the CSCE. I shall welcome it strongly if it is a contribution to peace and understanding. But the Opposition make certain conditions. First, it is most important in our minds that it must not be the occasion for the West to let down its guard. We regard this as fundamental. Secondly, it must not be just a matter of platitudes. There is enough cynicism among politicians in most countries already. The mere utterance of high level platitudes would do no service at all to the cause of international relations.
Thirdly, there must be a fair balance between the two sides, whatever action is taken, in the practical results of the conference. Fourthly, it must not be a case of pushing the problem out of Europe into the Indian Ocean. Fifthly, we must have some confidence that it will work in practice.
If all these conditions can be met—and I believe they can—then we believe that something of considerable value to us and all Western countries will arise from Helsinki, but we must not let down our guard. There is a danger if this document is signed, as we believe it will be at the end of the month, that many will say that now is the time to reduce our defences and to cut back our defence expenditure. People sometimes say of NATO that there is peace in Europe, so why do we have NATO? The answer is that we have peace in Europe because we have NATO —and it is a tribute to NATO that we have peace in Europe at the moment. Equally, the same principles should apply to what happens in Helsinki.
A breakdown of this conference would heighten tension. That would be a bad thing and a retrograde step which we would deplore. But let us be clear that the signature of an agreement in Helsinki would not justify the standing down of a single soldier in NATO. The real way to disarmament is through mutual and balanced force reductions. That is the essential way. The warning of troop manoeuvres will always be valuable and useful but clearly to modern, sophisticated, intelligence-provided countries there will be no great change in the present situation. It may avoid the danger of incidents but is not a major contribution.
Originally, MBFR was linked with Helsinki but somehow it has not got very far since it was originally started. We believe that it is of the utmost importance —and I believe that the Government fully agree—to proceed further and faster with mutual and balanced force reductions, and I certainly hope that the signature of an agreement in Helsinki will contribute to such progress by providing the atmosphere in which such progress can be made. I hope that the Government will make that point in the course of the meeting which will take place.
I turn next to the contents of the agreement, the so-called "baskets". First, let us consider the political basket. This, again, must not be purely platitudes. I have very little faith in clauses in treaties which say "We promise not to break treaties", any more than I have in clauses in the constitutions of emerging countries which say, "You must not overthrow the constitution". We do not get treaties and constitutions observed by these methods. When one looks at the matters to be considered under the first basket, one finds, for example, reaffirmation in conformity with the purposes and principles of United Nations of the following principles:
Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty; refraining from the threat or use of force; inviolability of frontiers; territorial integrity of States; peaceful settlement of disputes; non-intervention in internal affairs; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; equal rights and self-determination of peoples; cooperation among States; fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law.
All these, surely, are admirable principles but the public might ask, why has it taken all these years to agree on this? Surely these principles are self-evident to any rational person. Surely all these principles and obligations are already accepted under the Charter of United Nations, so what is it all about and why has it taken so long to come to fruition?
Therefore, we must look at the interpretation of these principles a little more closely and in particular, at how the Soviet Union will interpret the phrase about "non-intervention in internal affairs" and how they react to the point mentioned in the course of discussions about frontier changes by agreement.
All these are very important points on which we should be clear that Helsinki will be a success. First, on nonintervention in internal affairs, there can be a myriad interpretations of this statement, and interminable arguments about it, such as, what were the Russians doing in Portugal and what were the Americans doing in Italy? But the question is, does non-intervention in internal affairs mean no more Czechoslovakias? That is a point on which we should be a little clearer. There is what is known as the Brezhnev doctrine, though I do not know what status it has in Soviet Russia. If


we are to finish this conference understanding one another—and there is no point in having it if we do not—does the Soviet Union accept that if, by some spontaneous development, a non-Communist regime should emerge in an Eastern European country, that would be accepted by the Soviet Union and it would not try to intervene? Unless the Russians will agree to that, frankly I do not believe that a commitment to nonintervention in internal affairs has a great deal of solid meaning.

Mr. William Molloy: A Chile in reverse.

Mr. Maudling: There are arguments on both sides. We shall no doubt be asked, "What would you do if a Communist régime were to emerge in a NATO country?" We all know what the answer would be on both sides, but it is a fair question. But to get the reality of progress, particularly in a conference of this kind, sincerity and frankness are absolutely essential, otherwise it is a waste of time.
There is a second point about changes of frontiers by mutual agreement. This, again, seems common sense. If two countries want to change their frontiers, why should they not do so? From our point of view, at some time or other there could be frontier changes made for a solution of the problem of the running sore in Northern Ireland—but would the Soviet Union accept the reunification of Germany by mutual agreement? We would like to hear the Government's view on what is meant by the acceptance of the principle that frontiers can be changed by mutual agreement. These seem to me to be the main points in the first basket, the political basket.
Secondly, economics. Obviously, in the long run the expansion of trade is of mutual advantage, not only to our living standards but probably more important to our understanding of one another and to mutual sympathy between peoples, which is the only long-term safeguard against war. Therefore, we would very much welcome anything that can be done to make trade between the Western and Eastern blocs easier and flowing more freely than at the present time. There are, of course, disadvantages in the different systems, but my impression is that

business men, and indeed Governments from the West, both in Europe and in North America, find that they can do very good business in the Soviet Union. I always hear from my business friends that the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc will adhere to any contract that they make and that once they make a bargain they stick to it.
I am puzzled by the reference to "most favoured nation", because, as I recall it, there is the problem of how one protects one's own trade. We do so in the West by means of quotas and tariffs but in a Communist State the man who is in charge is merely told not to buy certain goods or that when he buys, say, textiles, from perhaps Yorkshire or Lancashire, these are to be marked up by 200 per cent. when put on sale in the Soviet Union. There are these different methods of protection used for the Communist economy. Therefore, in trying to reach agreement on economic problems I hope that we shall bear in mind the difficulty of protecting our people whilst giving them adequate access to the markets of the Communist bloc.
Thirdly, there are social problems, to which the House will pay particular attention—problems involving family ties, the ability to marry or the ability to travel for professional reasons, including in order to emigrate, and including that ability to travel for those who no longer wish to live in a country which they feel is not friendly to them. Naturally we, with our traditions in the House of Commons, regard all these personal movements of families and of people as of the highest importance. Equally important is the exchange of information, the ability of our people to distribute their ideas in the Soviet countries, and, on the other side, the ability of the Soviet authority and the Soviet media to express their own views here.
These are ideas of the greatest importance. We have the impression from what we read in the Press that a great deal of progress has been made in these matters. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us, so far as he can, about the progress that is being and has been made. Unless there is a substantial move, it is difficult to see what the balance of advantage is.
I come next to the balance of advantage, which is my third condition to


accepting a Helsinki agreement. There must be a fair balance of advantage to both sides. We must not quibble. It is silly to quibble. In any case, the advantage to both sides of a really fruitful agreement is overwhelming. The Government have recognised and the Foreign Secretary has said that we cannot go forward to the signature of an agreement unless there has been some mutuality and fair exchange. Indeed, I suppose that is what a great deal of these protracted negotiations have been about. We would like to hear from the Minister today how the Government see the position at the moment.
My view, for what it is worth, is that it is difficult to define any tangible advantage to either side. We have asked for greater freedom of contact, which is of advantage to the individuals concerned, and for greater freedom of information. This will be of advantage to us and, frankly. of advantage to the East. It is mutual. I do not see either side getting an exclusive benefit out of the free flow of ideas and people.
It is said that the East wants more trade and access to the technology of the West. We want access to the markets of the East. Again, I do not see any exclusive balance one way or the other in economic terms.
There is the argument, which I have heard expressed by many people, including a number of my hon. Friends, that the Soviet Union will gain much from the acceptance of present frontiers in Eastern Europe. I am not as yet convinced by that argument. I should welcome the Government's view on it.
It seems to me that two problems are a little confused. The first relates to frontiers and the second to the domination of independent countries by their neighbours. They are quite separate points.
I should have thought that by now the frontiers had in practice been fully recognised, including Germany's frontiers. No one conceivably imagines that we shall try to change those frontiers by force. Indeed, I understand that there are provisions within the Helsinki agreement for the changing of frontiers, where desirable, by mutual agreement. Therefore, I do not see that the Soviet Union gains anything in practice regarding frontiers on the European map.
On the domination of one country by its large neighbour—I take here the Czechoslovakia example—I see nothing in this potential agreement which would make such domination any easier than at present. On the other hand, an undertaking not to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, if fully understood, explained and set out explicitly at the conference, could be of advantage. Therefore, subject to correction in the debate, I do not see that the Soviet Union will gain either on frontiers or on the possible domination of its neighbours in the Communist bloc.
I want to make only two further points. The first is on overspill. Europe, though fundamental, is not the whole world. It is a fair point to make, as I saw made in the Financial Times recently, that it would be a pity to concentrate solely on Europe and to ignore the growing dangers in the Indian Ocean and east of Suez. Therefore, I hope that, so far as possible, anything which happens at Helsinki will not push the problem further east but will be a foundation for reaching similar agreements and détente in the further eastern situations.
We must recognise that throughout these discussions—they have been going on for more than two years now—the build-up of Soviet forces has gone on. They have more tanks, aircraft and ships, and they are wider spread throughout the world. During the whole time there has been a great growth in the strategic power and deployment of the Soviet Union. It is not a matter which can be disregarded when we come to a summit conference such as is being foreseen at this moment.
Finally, on enforcement or the follow-through, I read the wise words of the Minister in another place recently. We should not be too formal about this flatter. We do not want some rigid way of enforcing what is said. A rigid way of doing it will not happen anyway. The sorts of things said at this type of conference are not rigid. We should take time over this matter. We should recognise that, unless the agreement is carried through, it will be a great let down to public opinion and give rise to further cynicism about politics and statesmen in general.
The objectives are clear. It would make a nonsense of the whole conference, to which the Russians are clearly committed, if it were not followed through. I hope that the Government will advise us on this matter. In our arrangements on the follow-through, let us try to concentrate on the substance and not get too enmeshed in the forms and modalities.
I believe that MBFR and SALT are infinitely more important for peace than anything which can happen at Helsinki. I very much hope that the Helsinki conference will mean that these talks will go ahead more effectively. The success of Helsinki will depend very much on what emerges from them.
Subject to that and to the reservations that I have made about defence, practicality and other matters, we strongly support the idea and the objective behind the conference. We believe that anything which contributes to détente and disarmament is to be welcomed, but let us keep our eyes very wide open.

4.07 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has dealt in some detail with the history of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and has, therefore, absolved me of the necessity to do the same.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to begin what I have to say by defining what I believe are the three questions which should be examined in the debate.
The first, as I understand it, is: will the second stage of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe end in success?
The second is: will that success be sufficiently great to justify the work of stage two, now being completed, being confirmed and endorsed by a summit meeting with all the implications which that occasion would carry?
The third question to which we must address ourselves is: if the conference has succeeded overall, has that successful result involved concessions by the West which might in themselves jeopardise our security?
I want to try to answer those three questions. However, before attempting to do so, I should like to remind the House of two other matters. The first is the real objectives and intentions of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Secondly, I want to suggest ways in which the success of that conference in its second stage, now almost completed, ought to be measured.
The purpose of the CSCE is clear but, I fear, complicated. It is one element in the West's policy of détente. Its specific contribution to that general policy comes in many forms. It is intended to create the trust that ought to characterise relationships in Europe. It is intended to build the confidence that ought to exist between European nations.
The conference is meant to establish a code of conduct which will guide the nations of Europe in their relations with each other. Equally, it is intended to encourage policies which translate détente into real advantages for ordinary people.
Those, in either identical or similar words, were the purposes of the conference outlined in its first stage by Foreign Ministers of a variety of persuasions, including the then British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Those are the aims which the conference will attempt to achieve.
Before I move on to describe how successful the conference has been in pursuing those achievements, let me try to explain some of the things which the conference is not, but which it has been described as being over the past two years. The conference is not, as some people have feared, and, indeed, as today's Daily Telegraph has stated,
in effect a peace treaty defining the post-war map of Europe".
In no way does the outcome of the conference affect the legal status of existing frontiers. It is emphatically not a Treaty of Vienna in the sense that the purpose and intention of the Treaty of Vienna was to draw the map of Europe for ever. That is not the purpose, intention or hope of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Nor is it the intention, as some people —people in Eastern as well as Western Europe—hope that the CSCE will provide an opportunity to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Indeed, that conduct is specifically renounced in


the stage two texts which I hope, as I shall later explain, 35 Prime Ministers and Presidents will endorse in Helsinki during the summer.
Nor is it the intention of the conference to act in a military sense. In this context it may well be that the adjective or adjectival noun "security" is something of a misnomer which has deluded and confused many people who have watched and examined the conference.
The conference is not concerned with military reduction or weapon limitation. Discussions on those subjects take place in Vienna in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that nothing that has come out of Geneva or that may come out of Helsinki will, in itself, justify the standing down of a single soldier or the making obsolete of a single tank. I hope that what flows from the conference, particularly the impetus it may give to the mutual and balanced force reduction talks, will produce exactly that end, but the CSCE in itself is not intended for that purpose and could not legitimately have that result.
The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the summit, which we hope will endorse the texts already agreed by the 35 participating countries, will not in itself be a self-contained achievement. It is important, and I believe it is of crucial importance in terms of relationships in Europe for the rest of this century, that it should provide, and can provide, a general framework upon which more specific achievements can be based. Perhaps its overwhelming historical importance is that by the signatures of the 35 Prime Ministers and Presidents—given, I hope, before the summer is out—all the nations of Europe will become formally and publically committed to a relationship which is based on co-operation rather than confrontation.
I agree that those achievements, if achievements they he, are, in the words of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, intanaible. That was always understood and always accepted. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman in his capacity as Foreign Secretary, as he then was, when

launching the British position during stage one of the conference accepted that the nature of the deliberations and of the outcome would not be material things which we could measure and draw, but they would be setting the tone for European relationships. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of a successful summit in a week or a fortnight's time the Brezhnev doctrine will be dead, that the reunification of Germany will be possible or that another Czechoslovakia could never come about. However, I can assure him that all those matters are a good deal less likely to be resolved in terms which are unacceptable to the United Kingdom than if CSCE did not take place. I think that the pressure of world opinion on those countries which have—

Mr. Churchill: That was some comfort to the Czechoslovaks in 1968.

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that as the years pass the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) will come to face the world as it is rather than as he would like it to be.
The Government's task, which has been endorsed by the official Opposition, is to accept that making some progress and some achievement is better than no progress and no achievement at all.
I devoutly believe that as a result of the texts which I am sure will be endorsed by the Presidents and Prime Ministers in a week or fortnight's time, along with the pressures on countries to observe and respect the texts which they have signed, and the pressures of international opinion, the prospects of international odium will specifically and definitely reduce the possibilities of the sort of anomalies to which our attention has been drawn. I cannot pretend to suggest that the signing of the agreement will automatically prevent that from happening. Nor could anyone who launched the conference, nor could the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member when the conference was evisaged, nor could the right hon. Gentleman when he was Foreign Secretary and introduced stage one of the conference.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that


point, I should like to raise a matter. I do not know of any positive act by the Soviet Union to suggest that détente is other than an illusion. Assuming that I am wrong, is it right that the Yugoslavs are any happier than they were 10 years ago?

Mr. Hattersley: I cannot speak for the Yugoslav Government. However, if the summit is held—it is my hope that it will be—the Government of Yugoslavia will be a signatory. In this matter, as in others, it is encumbent on us to accept the judgment of the Government of Yugoslavia rather than to think that we know better than they about what is best for their security. I shall develop in a moment the argument that one of our qualifications is to protect the interests of the neutral and quasi-neutral countries, and Yugoslavia is one of the countries involved.
The achievements are, in a sense, intangible, but they are in every sense real, and can be measured and can be described as successful. Measuring the success of the conference can be done in two ways. The first is the extent to which the texts that are argued over—some people would say agonised about over the last two years—and perhaps soon to be submitted to the Heads of Governments, actually endorse the proposals and principles of détente that this House and this country would approve.
The second measurement of success from which we cannot run away is the likelihood that those texts will be respected as well as accepted. The prospects of those texts being implemented as well as approved is the point that was raised by the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the conference will lose its validity if it talks in terms of platitudes rather than policy.
I should like to make one point absolutely clear. The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe was never intended to have an international legal force. Had such a proposal been made, Her Majesty's Government of the time and the Government which followed would not have agreed to such a proposition. The implementation of the principles enshrined in the texts and eventually endorsed by the Prime Ministers depends on the pressures of world opinion, logic and, I believe, self-

interest. If they work in practice, they do so because of the odium which would accrue to countries which, having signed them, then ignored them.
I turn to the review arrangement and the idea that after two years there should be an examination of how the texts have been applied, how the principles have worked and how the rules have been observed. That will focus, as it is intended to do, international opinion on those countries—and I hope I speak hypothetically—which have signed the agreement but have chosen not to observe it. I cannot assure the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that every word, every line and every comma of the texts that might eventually be signed will be observed. That is a matter of forces of politics, influence and power which goes far beyond the scope of the CSCE.
I believe that the principles enshrined in the documents are more likely to be preserved, observed and respected because of what has happened during the past two years.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Whether or not these texts are observed, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the texts are compatible with the Brezhnev doctrine which I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was still in vogue?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I said that the texts and their signatures do not mean overnight that the Brezhnev doctrine is no longer in vogue. That is a very different point. The Brezhnev doctrine remains something which is accepted and advocated by substantial forces in the Soviet Union. I also believe that it has in no way been enhanced, enshrined or incorporated into international understanding by the CSCE.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That was not my question. Is it compatible?

Mr. Hattersley: The question of compatibility is not appropriate. The question of compatibility is: are we, by signing the texts and by Prime Ministers endorsing them, giving a credence to the Brezhnev doctrine which it did not have? My answer is a categoric "No". We are not doing so, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman ought to be assured on that point and ought to be content that we


are not giving the doctrine of which he and I disapprove a status and importance which it did not previously have.
I turn to the texts, about which the hon. Gentleman has asked me and on which I can give him some help. I ought to tell the House, in response to the right hon. Gentleman's question, that we are now ready in Geneva—the 35 participating nations—to offer to the Prime Ministers and Presidents a whole range of mutually agreed texts, all of which reflect the Western view of détente in Europe. I hope, in a moment, to give examples of the principles which are proposed in those texts, texts already agreed by the participants, principles already enshrined. Before I do I ought to emphasise that there are still a number of outstanding issues to be resolved. Until they are resolved there can be no absolute certainty that the summit will take place in the summer and that the Presidents and Prime Ministers will assemble at Helsinki on the proposed dates.
Let me also make it clear that none of the outstanding issues is a matter of major contention between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. Each of them is of great importance to a large number of delegations. As the House will know, the CSCE proceeds by consensus. It would be intolerable if the wishes of neutral nations were overridden by the interests of the two great military alliances. Therefore, while these outstanding issues remain we cannot say with any certainty that the summit is an established fact. At this moment it is a hope. Let me explain why "hope" is the right word to describe the Government's attitude and intention. The Government certainly want a stage three summit in July or August.
The Government judge that it is in our direct interests that a summit should not be postponed until later than that date. The idea of a July meeting of Heads of Government gives great impetus to the stage two discussions. The desire to reach agreement in time for that meeting made progress possible on a number of extremely difficult issues. In recent weeks we have achieved consensus on a whole range of issues which previously seemed insoluble. I emphasise again that we have reached agreement on terms which are wholly acceptable to the West.
If momentum was now lost, if for some reason the summit could not be held towards the end of July or the beginning of August, I believe that it would result in a substantial deterioration of our overall position. Issues at the point of formal agreement might not be resolved, while issues that have been decided might be reopened.
The souring of the general atmosphere might cause delays in the MBFR talks in Vienna, talks which we hope will make increased progress once the CSCE summit is held. We hope—and that is exactly the word—and believe that a meeting at summit level will be held in Helsinki on 30th July or soon after. The Government of Finland have begun to plan and arrange a conference on that date on the assumption that this is the target for which the participants aim and in the hope that that target can be met.
If—I use the word a fifth time—as we hope, the 35 Presidents and Prime Ministers are to meet there and then, let me remind the House of some of the principles they will endorse, and let me in doing so take an example from each of the baskets, as they are called, thanks to the influence of France.
Basket 1A, dealing with the principles that ought to characterise the conference, commits participants to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. It confirms that existing frontiers in Europe are not to be assaulted or changed illegally by force but acknowledges that frontiers can be changed in accordance with international law by peaceful means and agreement.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman reads out Basket 1A. Does it not become an absolute farce that countries where it is manifestly impossible to practice one's religion have been signing this document? Does it not show the whole thing for what it is, an absolute sham and charade?

Mr. Hattersley: I do not believe so. I believe that the documents will be signed, and I believe that hon. Members, I with them, will use every opportunity in future to say to those Governments to which the hon. Member refers and to those countries he has in mind,


"Not only is this intolerable in terms of principle and morality but you, in Helsinki in the summer of 1975, committed yourself to a different policy". The hon. Member and I will say to those Governments, "The odium you are attracting in the Third World, among the uncommitted nations, in those countries which are confused about where real peace, justice and freedom lies, will so redound to your discredit that in your own vested interests you will be wiser to behave differently". This is an important ingredient, an important lever we possess.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the developing nations in Africa and the East will look on some of us as practising a form of hypocrisy when we look aghast because there is not freedom of expression and the right to self-rule in Eastern Europe, yet do not think that similar principles should apply in places like Rhodesia?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure my hon. Friend and hon. Members will agree that we can sign those paragraphs concerning individual human freedom with a clear conscience. I agree with my hon. Friend about Rhodesia. The important point is that we can sign this and will use the signature by other countries in a less unequivocal position as a lever to bring pressure to bear on their future conduct.
That is not the only advantage of the texts which I hope will be signed. In Basket 1B concerning confidence-building measures there is the agreement that States will provide each other with clear details of the nature and purpose of their military manoeuvres and will ensure that observers are made available to check and confirm details. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet may be right to say that the great Powers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact regard that as a rather insubstantial benefit. I cannot confirm or deny that. The Deputy Foreign Minister of one Eastern European country said he had no doubt that every country in the Warsaw Pact and every country in Western Europe knew whenever a general left central headquarters in any of the capitals. That may be so for them and for us but it is not so for the Governments of the

neutral nations who take a positive and enthusiastic view of the need for notification of manoeuvres by Warsaw Pact and NATO countries on their borders.
The conference is as much about Sweden, Austria, Finland and the other non-aligned countries as it is about the great Powers. For the benefit of those other countries, if for no one else, this is a most important step forward.

Mr. Julian Critchley: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Russians have agreed that the CBM should include areas of Western Russia?

Mr. Hattersley: The Russians have included a specific parameter of 250 kilometres—[Interruption.] In negotiations one asks for artificially high figures and accepts what is thought to be a reasonable compromise. The figures we have accepted are a great deal larger than the figures we were originally offered and a great deal lower than were originally asked for. It is the view of ourselves, the United States and all NATO partners that they represent a reasonable basis for compromise. It is a compromise which certainly meets the needs of the neutrals, and it is the neutral countries whose interests are specially respected and need to be respected.
I now turn to basket 2—commercial matters. In basket 2 there is a commitment to greater dissemination of technical and commercial information and to the promotion of better working conditions for firms and their individual representatives. Every Minister at the Board of Trade and every Minister of Foreign Affairs is told that those are essential ingredients if we are to improve trade with Eastern Europe.
I should like to deal with the question of the most-favoured-nation clause. This treaty is not a trade agreement. Therefore, in a direct sense the most-favoured-nation clause does not apply. The text says that in the future relations between the 35 countries the most-favoured-nation clauses should be thought about carefully. The fact that we have signed the text and that the Prime Ministers have approved them does not mean that each of the 35 is the most favoured nation of the other 34.
Basket 3 is most important as it affects the lives of ordinary people in Europe


most directly. That is where we have made the most progress. It includes pledges for the reunification of families divided by national and ideological frontiers. It guarantees the working conditions of journalists. It provides for the freer flow of written and broadcast information between Eastern and Western European countries. I believe that this is a practical measure. As part of my daily work I present to the ambassadors of certain European countries the names of families divided by nationality or ideology whom the Government think should be re-united. My task in obtaining those reunifications will be made increasingly easier as a result of the Prime Minister's signatures on this document. I already have a great deal of evidence of families who are now reunited in expectation of the Helsinki agreement and who would still be divided had the Helsinki prospect not been held out. I regard those as substantial achievements. Some, such as the prior notification of manoeuvres, make a positive contribution to trust and, therefore, to the security of nations. Others, such as that providing for the reunification of families, make a positive contribution to human happiness. For that reason alone I regard the conference as worth while. and a success.
Therefore. I offer an unequivocal answer to the first two questions. The two years of stage one and stage two have proved a success. Indeed, they have proved sufficiently successful to justify them being enshrined and endorsed by a summit meeting in the summer.
Although I answer those questions unequivocally, my self-imposed third question remains. Has the West made damaging concessions to achieve the overall result? I think that the answer is equally unequivocal. No such concessions have been made. None of the points about which I was asked this afternoon has lessened the result of the CSCE. Many points have improved it. No position which the West needed to hold has been sacrificed in the achievement of the overall result.
As the afternoon wears on, another fundamentally important question will be asked: does the existence or the occasion of the summit involve inherent dangers? Does it encourage the belief that more has been achieved than is the case? In consequence of that, does it persuade people

that there is less argument in favour of maintained defence spending, and a reduced need to maintain our vigilance and protection? The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet referred to our letting down our guard. I recognise that danger, but I believe that it can be overcome and avoided by describing the conference not as the achievement of détente, which it is not, but as an important step along the road to détente, which I believe it to be.
By pursuing the success of this conference we can overcome a second and even more important danger in terms of our defence and détente policies. We live in a world in which the Berlin airlift and the invasions of Hungary and of Czechoslovakia are barely remembered by a majority of the electorate. If those people are to remain—as I believe they should —committed to the Western alliance, the importance of defence and the necessity of keeping our guard up, they must be convinced of two points. The first is that détente has still to be achieved. Despite all the rhetoric, the meetings, the progress and the achievements which I believe will characterise the CSCE. there will still be a long way to go. If they need evidence of that long way to go, they need only examine the Soviet Union's increased defence expenditure year by year. However, that is only one ingredient of the message that we must give to the new generation.
The other message is that our pursuit of détente is real and genuine. Although we now insist that we must continue to be prepared and ready, we do not regard that preparedness and readiness as the way in which Europe should live for the rest of this century and the centuries which lie beyond. We actively hope to see a more civilised, a more compassionate and co-operative relationship throughout Europe, East and West Unless we can convince the electorate that that is our genuine purpose and intention, not only will it be cynical about our defensive capabilities and defensive commitments but it will be rightly and properly cynical about them.
The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is part of the general pattern and pursuit of détente. Without it I do not believe that we can justify our defensive posture. Nor can we argue as potently and as eloquently


for our defence expenditure. Defence and détente must go hand in hand. I do not suggest that as a result of the Helsinki meeting in 14 days' time, or the Geneva talks for the past two years, our defensive effort should be reduced. I suggest that Helsinki can provide one step along the road to a better relationship throughout Europe. For that reason I believe that the conference and its intentions should be endorsed.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I shall confine my remarks to those elements and policies which I find dangerous. Therefore my attitude will seem more critical than it is.
There is an old and somewhat odd saying to the effect that soft words butter no parsnips. I have often wondered what it meant. I think I know now. It means that soft words from the Soviets are not enough for security and should not persuade the United Kingdom to feel safe and its people able to relax either their physical or, what is perhaps more important, their mental guard.
There is a risk that even a small stagger along the road to détente could be regarded as a kind of appeasement. That is especially true when the soft words come in a declaration from a conference which, for all its three stages, is only part of that detente. These words should have been matched by progress in the other part, at the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna. But here the Russians are firmly fixed on proposals which give them a massive advantage in every form of conventional weapon and which give to the Warsaw Pact great numerical strength compared with NATO.
I do not think that we can regard the Helsinki and Geneva talks as a proposed stage or step which will give us great reassurance, although the Soviet Empire might inside its borders describe it as "Operation something for nothing".
The Minister referred to four main headings or baskets. The proposals contained in the first basket will be formally accepted by the world, by implication if not explicitly, on the basis that conquest is permissible for Communists. However, it is true that the Russians have moved from the position of regarding the bound-

aries of Europe as immutable, in that they can be changed by agreement. However, that must be little consolation to those people who saw what happened in the latter stages of the war and afterwards. Despite this change, the conference has accepted that Europe, east of the Elbe, remains Communist, regardless of the fact that it is so only because of the force of Soviet arms. In return, we have accepted some rather vague assurances, welcome as they are, about human rights and fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of thought, of conscience and religion.
The second heading, "Economic and Trading", seems almost wholly to the Soviet Union's advantage. It gives them free access to superior technology which they have long wanted. If we look back we can see how much they have already been achieved based on the technological developments in Western countries. Unless we are very careful, we shall also give then trade benefits on extremely favourable terms. There may be some advantage to us and our European partners, but I do not find it very easy to detect.
On the heading "Cultural and Human Contacts", except for a reasonably firm undertaking on journalists the statements are vague in the extreme. Everything is presented on the basis, "We will do what we can" or "We shall use our best endeavours". Again, this is something, but it is not very much.
The danger in these main headings and the terms in which they will be presented at Helsinki in the third stage of the conference is that we shall be led to believe that Communism is no longer the enemy of a free and open society as well as the enemy of free enterprise and a mixed economy. If we forget that, détente indeed becomes appeasement and could become defeat.
The biggest and best basket of all the items is that relating to arrangements for the follow-up of the conference. I hope that the United Kingdom will concentrate on deed and action. Whatever else we may do, let us see that the countries behind the Iron Curtain put into action the aspirations signed at Helsinki.
Let us see whether the Russians will change and no longer seek to extend their political and economic influence in other Iron Curtain countries and no longer seek


to dominate them and to intervene elsewhere as they have done in many cases before.
Let us see that there is real progress in the Vienna talks and that the Soviet Union accepts that the ball is now in its court and that it must make the first move. It is its superiority in conventional forces that frightens us, and it cannot be said that NATO represents the same sort of threat to Russia. Unless we get this sort of progress, then even the little shuffle, rather than a step, along the road to détente that will be represented by the conference will be a dangerous sham.
I hope that the Government will assure the House that they will recognise the importance of the European Economic Community in the follow-up. Surely this will be an opportunity to develop political co-operation among the nine member States. With a unity of policy and purpose, which I am glad to see was welcomed by the Prime Minister at Question Time this afternoon, and in the hope that this unity will begin to lead to a common policy and reinforce in the political field the economic co-operation, we must ensure that what follows the conference is of advantage to the members of the Community.
I am sorry that the Prime Minister denied that the EEC had any real concern for defence. Formally, our defence is through NATO; but there is an EEC concern, which has to be linked with cooperation in every way throughout Europe, between defence and the policies of the Community. Any possibility of the security of Western Europe being endangered must be of concern to the Community as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnett (Mr. Maudling) referred to non-intervention in internal affairs and quoted the role of the Russians in Portugal and the Americans in Italy. He implied, unintentionally no doubt, that only these two great nations were in a position to intervene in other countries and that only they could stop each other from intervening. I hope that the Government will make clear that, despite NATO, which, of course, we all support and recognise as essential to the safety of Western Europe, the EEC has an interest in the future of the Vienna talks. It has an interest in defence policy as well

as in the follow-up to the conference. That interest, though allied to, is separate from, that of the United States and extends beyond the boundaries of Europe because the security of Europe also extends beyond its boundaries.
I hope that we shall hear tonight that the follow-up to the conference, whatever its outcome, will be real, that the reality will comprise a joint effort by the nine EEC States and that we shall use this to help formulate a unity of purpose and policy in the form of a common policy for the countries of the EEC towards the rest of the world.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: I suppose it is inevitable that, whenever we debate any aspect of European life, we are compelled from time to time to go outside Europe and to refer to this country's policies in other parts of the world. Mention has already been made of our policies towards the United States and towards developing countries and it is quite right that reference should be made to these policies.
It would be proper for the House to note some of the warnings of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), but I do not think we should be too downhearted and agree altogether with his Cassandra-like prognostications for this conference. The more we can talk with the countries of Eastern Europe and meet them as parliamentarians, the greater the hope that, later, ordinary people will also be able to meet with equal frequency. This would make a contribution to the achievement of détente which we all wish to see achieved as swiftly as possible.
As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said in opening the debate the joint venture which we all trust will be successful, involving the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft is an example of the sort of co-operation which must and can take place. It is not the result of some casual agreement between the Americans and the Russians to link these craft in the heavens, 155 miles above Bognor Regis. The exploit follows from a tremendous amount of sensible cooperation between the two countries. The venture has been free of espionage, which has bedevilled international relations since the war. Russian scientists, technicians


and technologists have been working amicably with their American counterparts to bring about this scientific achievement. If only this sort of co-operation could be extended to other areas we should move towards the ultimate goal of complete civilisation for mankind.
It is within Europe that we can show the lead which is desperately needed in securing co-operation, and for that reason I welcome the conference on security and co-operation. It will not be a magnificent achievement which will of itself set us on the road to sanity, but it will represent one small link in the chain which decent people are trying to forge to bring the world together in mutual understanding.
The basket system seems to be a complicated and difficult way of working. I had experience of it when I attended the IPU conference on these issues last January in Helsinki. I came to the conclusion that it offered an advantage to both sides. It was possible to put into departments or baskets the various problems facing Europe.
It is worth stressing to the right hon. Member for Farnham that Britain should not be seen as being concerned only with itself and the other eight members of the EEC. There are those in Eastern Europe who would be only too happy for us to adopt that approach. It would be dangerous for Britain to take that view and to forget that it had friends and allies in Western Europe outside the Common Market. We have very strong friends in the Common Market who cannot stomach NATO and have got out of it. These issues must be borne firmly in mind when we consider the question of our security.
One of the things we stressed at the Belgrade meeting of the IPU this year was the need not merely for free movement of people in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc but that if there were to be a genuine understanding between East and West, a start could perhaps be made by allowing business representatives to travel much more freely in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
I was criticised for advancing this view and I was asked why, as a democratic Socialist I should be concerned that the business men of Britain, the representatives of the big firms, should have more freedom to move around in Eastern bloc

countries. I pointed out that those business men were the representatives of skilled British artisans. It was impossible for every working man from the benches, the mines, and the factories to go personally to sell the products he made, and that the business men were their representatives who could demonstrate how much the British working man and British industry had to offer and how wise it was to purchase their work.
Exporting is not only good for the economy, it is good for international relations, and I hope that in the discussion on economic matters it will be stressed that both sides of the House of Commons want a much freer attitude adopted towards business representatives who travel in Eastern Europe. If that freer attitude were adopted, the day might come when people from this country, who at present go for their holidays to France, Germany and Italy, would feel safe to take them in Eastern bloc countries.
What we have to overcome is that which thwarts all our endeavours and which might well thwart the endeavours of those in Eastern Europe who genuinely wish to see détente—namely, the fear that we shall produce something in the way of armaments which will be superior and more devastating than that which the other side possesses. When I look at the ordinary people in my constituency and throughout the country, I cannot imagine that as they go about their work and play the matter that occupies their minds is how they can wipe out the Soviet Union. Equally, I do not believe that the millions in the Soviet Union are thinking of how they can wipe out the West. It is probably fair to say that it might be a fair criticism of all politicians, both East and West, that they are out of touch with the genuine feelings of the people whom they represent. I can understand some people advancing that argument, although if I had time I would like to analyse it.
If we are to try to bring about détente effectively and if we can in confidence persuade countries in the Eastern bloc to reduce their arms, it will be possible, once we have every assurance that it is safe to do so, to lower our guard. I use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. Equally, it would he very dangerous to say that as Russia is spending millions and millions of pounds


on defence we must inflict on ourselves a form of economic polio. That could be just as devastating as some form of physical invasion. We must beware of that danger.
I wish the conference to be a success. I believe that this country has a great deal to offer not only to Europe but to the world. Even if the conference goes only half way towards what it wants to achieve, that in itself will be a step forward towards the creation of an atmosphere within which we can work amicably and sensibly in bringing about what I believe everybody wants in both Eastern and Western European countries. What we do not know yet is how that can he achieved. It is only by talking to one another and by discussing problems with one another that we might find the solution and move towards the desired goal. It is in that context that I believe that these forms of conference are well worth while. I believe that ultimately they will make a contribution to the restoration of sanity in Europe and perhaps thereafter in the rest of the world.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Thus far in the debate there has been a consensus of view. First, it is agreed that the CSCE is unlikely to have a great impact on security but may well lead to useful advances in co-operation on a European scale. Secondly, it is agreed that it cannot be looked upon in isolation. The security aspect must he concentrated upon through the SALT talks and the MBFR talks, which themselves have unfortunately so far had disappointing results.
It is worth noting at the beginning that if the Soviet Union is sincere in its desire to strengthen détente, it has clearly in the MBFR talks the opportunity to demonstrate its sincerity by displaying a more forthcoming response to the Western proposal that there should be cuts on both sides in Central Europe and some kind of common ceiling. It is there that the likelihood of an improvement in security on a lower scale in Europe is likely to happen.
It is equally important to emphasise that we cannot separate East-West security within Europe from the rest of the world. It would be unreasonable for the countries in Europe to accept a situation in Europe and at the same time to

ignore what is going on in the Indian Ocean, what we read is going on in Somalia and what we know is going on in Uganda. Incidentally, it would be useful if the next time Jack Jones visits the Soviet Embassy he mentions Uganda and asks what justification the Soviet Union can have for arming General Amin. That would be a useful contribution for Mr. Jones to make.
The Soviet Union's original objective in pushing for a security conference was to obtain formal ratification of the status quo in post-war Europe. The West has long mistrusted this approach. Indeed, we went through a long process of mistrust which, to some extent, the Minister has outlined. The Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 undoubtedly was an event which delayed the CSCE, although for me the 1968 invasion was nothing like as important as the 1947 take-over of Czechoslovakia. As a Liberal, that event is embedded in my mind, in that the Liberal-Social-Democratic alliance is the one most susceptible to that kind of take-over for political reasons. Therefore, I am deeply suspicious of whatever alluring words we hear from the East.
Subsequently we had Ostpolitik, and in some ways the CSCE is the conference after the event, the acceptance of Ostpolitik and the acceptance of reality. However, I must say that at one stage I did not like the Minister's phraseology. Although we should not chide Ministers for their phraseology in response to interjections, when their words are not as considered as they might otherwise be, the right hon. Gentleman said that we should accept the world as it is rather than as we would hope it to be. As a politician, I believe that we should always look at the world as we would hope it to be. I am not of the view that we should accept things as they are simply because that is the real-politik of the matter.
Since the conference began, the balance of power as between East and West has shifted considerably to the West's disadvantage. There has been the Greek-Turkish conflict on the southern flank of NATO and the events in Portugal. There has been the effect upon the United States of its defeat in Vietnam. At the same time, we have had the Soviet Union


continuing to expand its conventional military forces while the West—that includes Great Britain specifically—has been making defence cuts. That has shifted the military balance in Europe heavily to the advantage of the Eastern Bloc.
I note that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) shakes his head in dissent. The reason that this debate has been so consensus-like thus far has been that we have not yet had a contribution from the element that the hon. Gentleman represents. However, we are entitled to ask what the Soviet Union means by détente if it has definitely and consciously continued to add to the strength of its conventional forces.

Mr. Stanley Newens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the West has vast superiority in nuclear terms and that the Soviet Union can well argue that it has to have superiority in conventional terms? Is not that a fact?

Mr. Johnston: I am not at all clear as to the logic of that. We all know and it was the Minister who remarked upon it at some stage, that once one is involved in a nuclear conflict it does not matter how many nuclear weapons one has because the whole balloon goes up. I do not see how we can use that as a justification for increasing conventional arms. So although détente, in the sense of a relaxation of tension between East and West, is warmly to be welcomed, we must be wary of confusing the illusion of détente with the reality of détente.
We do not know very much about the agenda for the forthcoming conference and the baskets which have been mentioned. We must depend on unofficial sources rather than on specific communications.
I believe that two main points emerge from the situation. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that the Community countries have demonstrated their capacity for cohesion. I also accept the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that the Community is not the whole of Europe. But it is a desirable achievement that the Community countries have demonstrated that capacity, particularly when we

realise that France does not even take part in the MBFR talks. That surely shows a move towards stability.
Basket 1 is worth referring to because of the military confidence-building measures which were an initiative of a British Conservative Government, which were continued by a British Labour Government, and which indeed represent a degree of consensus on these matters which both sides of the House have followed, including the Liberal Party. That package also contains items such as the prior notification of force manoeuvres and the exchange of military observers. It looks to be a possibility for agreement. I am much more interested in what is possible than in any rhetoric.
On basket 2, I cannot add very much to what has been said, except to make the rather pessimistic point that it is still possible to argue, I am afraid, that more can be achieved on a bilateral basis than on an East-West basis. We have, after all, done it ourselves. That has been the experience so far.
Basket 3, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, is the most important basket from the West's point of view. It is true, as the Minister said quite clearly, that the concessions that we are likely to achieve as a result of CSCE are, relatively speaking, minor. I refer to the reunification of families, inter-marriage across frontiers, improved conditions for Western journalists—matters which appear to us as minor because we regard them as normal, but which, nevertheless, are very much to be welcomed because they represent gains.
We have now reached the crunch in détente and we face a huge dilemma. We must face the fact that the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc is a monolithic and autocratic system which exists, and is able to exist, only because it denies the freedom which we have in mind when we talk about the improvement of human contacts. Therefore, the Soviet Union in maintaining its own system can go only so far towards the West. It can yield only so much to the West without in turn creating the risk of destabilising its own internal situation. There we reach the dilemma. From the point of view of the free, liberal, Western democrat, we want the East to release its tensions and to reach towards


the freedoms that we possess. But if this happens, it will result in a highly volatile situation such as may happen in Yugoslavia when Tito dies. This will not lead to the security and stability of which we are talking but to a highly unstable, volatile situation.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that there would be no interference in any nation's internal affairs. What does that mean? It obviously means that we do not send armies into other countries that we do not like. Does it mean, however, that we do not comment on other countries' internal affairs? I do not think it can mean that any more—and indeed it should not mean that. I am tired of receiving answers from the Foreign Office informing me that a certain matter is a question not for the Foreign Office but for the internal affairs of whatever country it may be. It is the duty of the democratic West, and particularly of the democratic country in which we live, to express its views about matters which it does not like and of which it disapproves and regards as being in contravention of human rights. But—and it is a big "but" —we must face the fact that if the monolithic and in some cases tyrannical system of the East ever breaks up, it will cause immense tensions.
Finally, clearly the follow-up will not be legally binding. I agree with the view that there is no point in creating some special machinery following the conference. I do not regard that as a good idea because it could develop into a propaganda machine. But the idea of a follow-up after two years, in which period one can assess reasonably and calmly the results of the conference, is the right way to proceed.
On behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I welcome any steps towards a genuine détente in Europe and beyond. Nevertheless, Soviet defence spending, linked to Soviet political rhetoric, casts the gravest doubts on the sincerity of the Soviet Union about détente, and it is of the greatest importance not to confuse the symbols of détente with its realities.
I hope that we shall look back to the CSCE not as a symbol but as a reality —as a milestone in easing tensions between two very different political systems.

We shall not achieve a relaxation of tension which will benefit East and West unless we clearly understand the risks and maintain throughout the highest degree of realism.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: All those who love peace and democracy—and I include the overwhelming majority of Members on both sides of the House—want with a deep passion to see achieved a genuine détente and a genuine end to the arms race. The agreement which we shall be asked to sign following the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe must be judged by one criterion: is this genuine détente or is it a fraud?
I speak as one who believes in close relations and understanding between the Soviet Union and ourselves. I also believe that such relations can bring forth successful agreement on specific and clear fields of common interest. We have seen this in the Partial Test-ban Treaty and in the Non-proliferation Agreement. But the CSCE agreement, as outlined so far, does not fall into that category. It is broad and in many respects unspecific. Therefore, it should be looked at with care by those who will be signing on behalf of the democratic countries.
The meeting of 35 Heads of Government will take place against a background of continued escalation of the arms race by the Soviet Union—not only in nuclear weapons but also in conventional arms. I should like to cite but one specific example: tank production in the Soviet Union today is running at 5,000 tanks a year—ten times the tank production of the United States. What is the purpose of this massive boost to the arms race?
The conference will also be taking place against the background of the substantial and recent victories of the Soviet Union and her allies in South East Asia, and what I believe to be clear interference by the Soviet Union in the internal affairs of our NATO ally, Portugal.
I have recently returned from Portugal where the battle for freedom and democracy is raging. It is not being fought with weapons, as yet, but none the less it is being fought in the factories, the trade unions and within the senior councils of the Armed Forces Movement. The verdict of the Portuguese electorate, 94 per cent. of whom voted—would that


we could get such a turn out in our elections—has been pushed aside by the military junta of Portugal as being of no consequence, even though the Portuguese people voted more than four to one in favour of democracy and against the Communists who, with their allies, achieved only 17 per cent. of the popular vote.
However, amid the apparent chaos of the political situation in Portugal there are powerful forces working towards a clear and positive objective. They are relentlessly and remorselessly taking advantage of the situation at every turn in the crisis.
The Portuguese Communist Party is, perhaps, the closest of all the Western Communist parties to the Soviet Union. There is a close relationship between it and Moscow. Shortly before the elections, Mr. Brezhnev saw the No. 2 in the PCP, Dr. Octavio Pato, and told him that he had to accept the verdict of the electorate, at least in the short term. At a time when we are being asked to accept from the Soviet Union the principle of non-interference, which presumably means that the Soviet Union will bind itself also to that principle, we should examine the realities. In the recent elections the Portuguese Communist Party was able to display ten times as many posters as all the democratic parties put together and today the Socialist Party and the other democratic parties are bankrupt but the Portuguese Communist party, thanks to cash from outside—and we all know where that comes from—is able to employ 2,000 full-time paid officials. This is a clear sign of interference by the Soviet Union in the domestic affairs of a NATO country.

Mr. Newens: Would the hon. Gentleman equally strongly condemn the interference by the United States through the CIA in, for example, the internal affairs of Chile and many other countries, including Iran? Will he make it clear that he is being fair and that he condemns that sort of influence equally strongly when it is carried out by the forces of the United States?

Mr. Churchill: It is particularly important that we should not tolerate a situation in which interference is totally

one sided. This is the reality of the situation today in Portugal.
An interest, which goes much deeper than that of a passive observer is being taken by the East in this affair. The countries of the West are standing aside and not even exerting themselves in a proper democratic way in order to help the domestic parties that are struggling for survival in Portugal. I shall cite but one example. I have been advised by no fewer than two heads of the democratic parties in Portugal that the Portuguese Service of the BBC is at present putting out broadcasts with a distinct pro-Communist bias, especially in the news programme at 11 o'clock at night. This is listened to by a large number of Portuguese because their own Press is totally controlled by the Communists—not only the eight principal daily pewspapers, but also the television and radio networks. This is their only means of getting truthful outside information which they cannot otherwise obtain. This is one way in which the West could be helping. I am not suggesting that the CIA should intervene in Portugal but, equally, I do not believe that it is for the KGB or anyone else to interfere in the internal affairs of a NATO member State.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has clearly said that the BBC has been beaming out Communist propaganda to Portugal in its overseas services. This is an extremely serious allegation. Can he substantiate it?

Mr. Churchill: I have represented what was said to me by two leaders of the democratic parties in Lisbon only two weeks ago. One of them, Dr. Mario Soares the Socialist Party leader, expresesd his substantial concern at the content of those programmes. He stressed the particular importance of this in the present situation where, as he put it, the diet that is available to the ordinary Portuguese people today amounts to little more than Pravda and lzvestia. Therefore, particular importance is attached to what is being broadcast from London. Even if we cannot be helpful to the democratic parties in Portugal, the least we can do is not to help their enemies.
The implications of a Communist take over in Portugal, which is a clear possibility, would be very grave for NATO.


On top of the Cyprus crisis, which has neutralised the Turks and the Greeks in the NATO Alliance, and on top of the Communist gains in the recent local government elections in Italy, it would mark the total collapse of the southern flank of NATO and would give free rein to Soviet power from the Azores through the Mediterranean to the Middle East.
In the CSCE Agreement the Soviet union is seeking to gain from the West formal acknowledgment of its conquests in the Second World War and, above all, its right to control indefinitely some 200 million people of Central and Eastern Europe who, before that war, were not under Soviet control. What, we may ask, are the feelings of those people? Unless the Soviet Union ceases forthwith its direct interference in Portugal, unless it is prepared to take fairly substantive—while recognising that we cannot ask too much—steps to liberalise and democratise its own society, unless it is, above all, prepared to give an undertaking that there will be no more Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and acknowledge that to have been a mistake, by going to this summit meeting and by putting their hands on behalf of the free people of the world to this document the leaders of the Western democracies could be in danger of signing a second Munich Agreement, signing away the rights of millions of people in far-away lands and, above all, duping their own people into believing that genuine détente and "peace in our time" had been achieved.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Tam Da1yell: As one who submitted evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure to the effect that in three-hour debates speakers should be short, I will try to follow that precept.
I go back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said about reunification of families in anticipation of Helsinki. That means something in my constituency. In the 1940s the Polish Armoured Division was stationed in Fife and West Lothian, with the result that many Polish men have made their livelihood amongst us and now, towards the end of their lives, they want for personal reasons to return to Poland on a visit with their families. Therefore, what my right hon. Friend said, and the general

feeling of détente, are important to some hundreds of my constituents.
I take this opportunity of thanking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its expedite behaviour whenever personal problems are raised in these often difficult matters relating to Poland or East Germany, and to comment that, perhaps not before time, I am glad that the British Foreign Secretary is in Poland. We have rather missed out in senior Ministers going to Poland, compared with the French and West Germans.
I wish to ask three blunt questions about the Russians. The first concerns Portugal. The House will not expect me to follow the extreme speech made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill). My hon. Friend for Neath (Mr. Coleman) and I saw Admiral Coutinho as we stopped off in Lisbon, on return from the IPU visit to Brazil. I hope that the Government will make it clear that it would be unwise for the Russians to try to manipulate a foothold in Portugal because that would cause serious problems in NATO and the West.
Secondly, I wish to see discussed the question of the Indian Ocean. Many of us who have a history of friendship with the Soviet Union are bothered, to put it mildly, by what we hear about an increasing naval force in the Indian Ocean and off Somalia. The Russians should be asked why they are doing this, and it should be explained to them that that policy seems to justify our policy of allowing American bases on Diego Garcia. I should be very much against allowing an American unit in Diego Garcia in the light of the views of the littoral states, especially in view of the nuclear weapons opposed by Sri Lanka, India and Pakistan, were it not for the growing Russian presence. The situation is awkward, and the Russians should be told that when there are massive Russian naval forces in the Indian Ocean it becomes difficult to deny the use of Diego Garcia to the Americans.
Thirdly, the Antarctic should be discussed at an early stage. Before the major countries of Western and Eastern Europe become too involved in the Antarctic, as they are rapidly becoming, some agreement should be worked out. I had the good fortune to attend the Foreign Office seminar on this subject.


Time precludes my going into the subject in detail, but I should like a clear statement from my right hon. Friend that this subject is on the agenda for the conference.
My constituents—and I think most East Scots—are becoming slightly bothered at constant Press reports of Russian ships shadowing our fishing boats in the North Sea and looking at the oil rigs. We should be candid with the Russians and ask what is the purpose of this shadowing. As my right hon. Friend talked of a spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation, I should like to go a good deal further and ask the Russians whether it is possible to come to a positive agreement on the difficult problems of deep sea diving that we and they face. As my right hon. Friend knows, the 52nd diver has lost his life in the North Sea, and there is some evidence that the Russians have had similar problems.
At a time when the American and Russian astronauts are linking up in Soyuz and Apollo it should not be too difficult for ourselves and the Russians, faced with similar problems on deep sea diving, to get together to see whether there is a basis for joint research. Incidentally, this subject raises yet again the issue of the deep ocean search and recovery vessel. That is the kind of project on which we could co-operate with the Soviet Union.
At Question Time today the Prime Minister made it clear that the European Parliament and the Nine were not concerned with defence and foreign affairs. At one level that is true, but at another level, those of us who have recently met Sir Christopher Soames and had the good fortune to see the European Parliament in action and to talk to our German and French colleagues, might have rather different views on this subject.
To limit myself to one aspect—procurement—there is no doubt that a European view is developing on procurement. For example, there was the episode of the Belgian F16 and what the French Government had to say about it. There is not time for me to deal with that in depth, but any Defence or Foreign Office Minister knows precisely what I am getting at, and knows also that there are people in Brussels who are beginning to

take major decisions that are not sorutinised under any democratic process.
One might ask whether the countries of Western Europe who have been through 300 years of struggle for democracy are now to find that some major decisions are being taken that are accountable to nobody. We might go back to the 1630s and to the problem that the House had at that time with Supply.
Speaking as a member of the budget committee of the European Parliament, I say this with some feeling. Let us not suppose that there is any chance of scrutinising and investigating these important decisions as long as the European Parliament is peripatetic, as long as one month the Parliament meets in Strasbourg, one month it meets in Luxembourg and the committees meet in Brussels. No serious Parliament can operate in those conditions.
If there is to be scrutiny, the European Parliament must meet in one place, and that must be where the decisions are made, which is Brussels. I hope that before many months are passed there will be a serious initiative from the British Government with the Governments of France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries, to ensure that if the European Parliament is to be taken seriously and if there is to be an element of democratic scrutiny, that Parliament must meet in one place and must be seen to be doing a solid job. So long as the European Parliament moves from place to place, I doubt whether the scrutiny that is necessary can be undertaken.
Will my Government undertake to raise the subject with the Governments of the Nine and to investigate whether the European Parliament can settle down next to the Commission and become an organ of proper and effective scrutiny?

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The mountain has brought forth a mouse. The Minister of State has tried to assure us that there is nothing very dangerous about the mouse and that there might even be some good in it. I hope that he is right, but I want to ask him one or two questions.
I understand that Her Majesty's Government have never recognised de jure


the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States or the Oder-Neisse frontier. May I have an assurance that when we subscribe to the principle of inviolability of frontiers we are in no way going back on the present position in regard to the Baltic States and the Oder-Neisse frontier? Many commentators, as recently as in the Financial Times yesterday, have argued that the Helsinki Declaration will set the stamp of recognition on the status quo in Europe.
If by the status quo is meant that we continue to recognise the territorial integrity of the countries of Eastern Europe, with the exception of what I have just said about the Baltic States and the Oder-Neisse Line, clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) pointed out, there is nothing very new about that. We have always recognised this and have been in diplomatic relations with them. But I should like an assurance that there is nothing in the declaration that would involve recognition of the partition of Europe on ideological lines, as something that we accepted as established and entrenched, that this is not a new Holy Alliance or Treaty of Westphalia intended to establish existing régimes permanently.
Here I should like to press the Minister a little on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the Brezhnev doctrine. As I understand it, the declaration would be incompatible with any attempt to impose a change by force on another country, as was done in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. I should like an assurance that that is Her Majesty's Government's interpretation of the declaration—that it would in fact outlaw the Brezhnev doctrine. I accept that it could not be a guarantee that it would not be done again, but that if it were done it would be contrary to the declaration.
The matter is important because of the anxieties that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), among others, about anything untoward happening in Yugoslavia and Albania.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I well remember the right hon. Gentleman as a very great supporter of the intervention in Suez in 1956. Would he say that a similar

line should be laid down with regard to British activities?

Mr. Amery: The right hon. Member is making a joly debating point about a very different situation, where treaty rights applied. I do not think it has any bearing on the Helsinki declaration. If we subscribe to the principle of the declaration I should like to be sure that the Government's interpretation would outlaw the Brezhnev doctrine.
I think we all welcome the concessions in basket 3, such as they are. It would be naive, as indeed the right hon. Gentleman made clear, to expect too much or even very much of this. Opinions may vary on how far the Soviet leadership still wants to spread world revolution, but I think all of us must agree that it has a vested interest in maintaining an adversary relationship with the West. The maintenance of its exclusive power and privileges depends upon it. The Soviet Union dare not allow freedom, as we understand it, to spread through its territory, because it would undermine the whole position of its leaders. This is a measure of their weakness, but it is also a measure of danger; for with technical developments, satellite television, and so on, the truth is going to be spread and will not be kept out. This may lead to a sharpening of the adversary relationship in the future.
I do not think that we can call what has been achieved in Geneva a great step towards real détente. There will be a real détente only when the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the whole paraphernalia of the "Gulag Archipelago" and the Police State has been dismantled. The Security Conference may be a small step in the right direction, but there is a slight atmosphere of charade about the summit that is to take place. There is a gap between words and realities. I say nothing of what has been happening in Vietnam or the expansion of the Soviet Fleet in the Indian Ocean. Looking simply at Europe itself, the Vienna talks on mutual and balanced force reduction were supposed to be a parallel development—not directly linked but moving in parallel—with the security conference. In Vienna there appears to be no progress at all but a steady build-up of Soviet forces in Central Europe. This is the background to the security conference.
There is something rather grotesque—to any of us who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) or who have been following the Portuguese situation in the newspapers—at the thought of a number of middle-aged statesmen toasting each other in champagne and making speeches about détente while in a European country at this moment democracy is being stifled by the very forces that were foremost in summoning this security conference.
I should myself have preferred that the conference were wound up at Foreign Minister level, but if our partners in the European Community thought differently, I think the Government were right to fall in step with them about it. I certainly salute the remarkable co-operation which has been achieved between the nine members of the Community in this very long haul. I hope that in the period ahead we shall keep the interests of the Community and of all Europe constantly in mind, particularly where the follow-up is concerned. I hope that we shall make sure that no machinery is established which would give to the Russians or, indeed, to the Americans, a right of supervision over the affairs of the Community.
The present tragic division of Europe stems directly from the Yalta agreements between President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin. It was a deal between super-Powers undertaken at the expense of Europe. It was a division which will be very hard to bridge, but at least let us do nothing to perpetuate it, let alone to entrench it.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: This is an historic day in East-West relations, not just because of the debate taking place here today, as a result of which to some extent I think East-West relations may have been retarded. I am referring to the Soviet-American link-up in space over Bognor Regis. Perhaps the technical benefits are rather limited but the political benefits of this relationship are, I believe, enormous, showing the new spirit of co-operation between East and West. It shows, too, that the détente proceeds at a number of different levels.
The MBFR talks and the SALT negotiations may be progressing slowly, but the fact that they are progressing at

all is something that we must welcome. The CSCE negotiations, culminating shortly in Helsinki, although lengthy and complicated—one might call them marathon negotiations—are welcome because they are bringing about improvements in relations between East and West.
I do not believe that we should see the MBFR and CSCE negotiations as separate. They are politcally and conceptually linked. One cannot talk about one without talking about the other. Many people have expectations about the outcome of these negotiations which are little short of euphoric. I do not share this euphoria. On the other hand, I deplore the attitude of some writers, especially the writer of a recent article in The Economist, who aproached the CSCE negotiations in a denigrating fashion. The writer said that there is "no agreement in sight". He also called it "this cursed conference", and said that everyone in the West is weary to death of the CSCE, its ten principles, its four baskets and its endless talking.
I hope that the views expressed by this writer are supported by only a limited number of people because, for all of the difficulties of the negotiations taking place, they are offering to East and West some hope for the future. One has only to recall the last 25 years of cold war, when this nation and the nations of the world on a number of occasions were almost plunged into a mighty conflagration, to see that progress is being made, which we must welcome. The fact that these negotiations that are taking place in Helsinki are protracted is an indication of their very complexity and the range of issues still dividing Europe 30 years after the ending of hostilities in the Second World War.
Rather than support The Economist I prefer to reiterate the much more optimistic sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Richie Calder, in another place. He said, and I agree with him that for good or ill this conference would determine the course of world events, and we should view these negotiations with considerable interest. We must view the progress of these CSCE negotiations as part of the wider progress towards détente. For all the obstacles which have been placed before it, its participants show a determination to reach agreement and, although the history books are, littered


with examples of failed conferences, we must express the hope that this one will not go down as an example which took a great deal of time and which did not yield any significant success.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: The hon. Gentleman said that the world's history books were littered with conferences which had been begun with great hopes. However, he is gloomy about hope for the future. The hope for the immediate future for the West must be to have sufficiently strong defences to make sure that we can defend ourselves against those who would attack us.

Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had curbed his impatience for a few more minutes he would have heard the remainder of my argument, which substantially reiterates his point.
We must remember that détente is little more than a decade old. I prefer to use the phrase "limited détente". A détente is not an alliance It does not mean a sinking of differences. It does not signify an amicable approach to all our problems. I wish that détente did signify more.
The rivalry between East and West will persist into the foreseeable future, but it will operate at a lower level of tension. Our survival depends on our working out a modus vivendi for living together peacefully, and our present state of limited détente recognises that, although East and West do not share the same goals, at least they are prepared to conduct their competition with significantly less risk to themselves and to the rest of the world.
We now face a clear choice between living in a mixed international system in which allies and adversaries are loosely bound together in a network of fundamental co-operation or a return to a bipolar situation in which the lines of conflict are drawn starkly, and the second of those choices almost inevitably will result in a significant increase in the danger of a new war.
We have come a long way since the process of détente began, but we cannot assume that we are moving progressively and inescapably towards a higher plane. We cannot assume that we are moving towards a position of détente and coexistence which will progressively im-

prove. Détente has suffered many reverses. One has only to read letters in the Daily Telegraph or attend debates in this House to know that some cold warriors are still with us. What is more, in the USA and in the USSR opposition to détente is still to be seen, and one well-known writer has said that he could envisage developments which would make this opposition to détente very considerable in the years ahead. We must not see progress as inevitable. Détente and a general improvement in relations have to be worked for. Given the mistrust in many quarters I am constantly amazed that détente has progressed as far as it has. There is nothing automatic about its continuation, and that is a point which we must bear in mind. It must be worked for, because our futures depend on it.
Recently I was in the Library looking at one of the works of a hard-working American professor, Professor Elliot Goodman, and I came across his "Soviet Design for a World State". That exemplifies the attitude of many people in this country who see the Soviet Union working towards world domination. Others say that the Russians have abandoned at one level their desire for world revolution but that they are now embarked upon a more cunning way in which they can lull the West into complacency, lower our guard and then strike with a view to creating this World State. Anyone who has read the works of Lenin knows that he said.
Our philosophy is not a dogma but a guide to action.
There are those people who, therefore, say that Soviet philosophy is war-consequent action and adaptable, that we are faced by an adversary with a more cunning approach. But we must remember that whereas the West would like to see every nation a liberal or social democracy that does not mean that we are prepared to engulf the world in a war to achieve that objective. The Soviet Union would like to see many nations embracing its political, economic and social system, but that does not mean that the Russians are now intent on world revolution to achieve that goal.
A pre-condition for the success of détente is clearly a military balance. The West negotiates from strength. As someone said earlier, we must maintain our defences, but at the same time we must


work genuinely for an improvement of relations. I do not say that the Soviet Union is trying to beguile us and that we should abandon all our defences. We must have a viable defence system, but at the same time we must work for an improvement in relationships.
All the participants in this Helsinki conference have a mixture of motives. Many people say that originally the Soviet Union saw these negotiations as an opportunity to drive a wedge between NATO and its allies. Many people say that the Soviet Union sees the conference as a process to facilitate United States disengagement from Europe. Many have seen it from the Soviet standpoint as a means of ratifying the post-war status quo and of confirming Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe or as a means for the Soviet Union to secure its European flank in order to free itself for greater propeations on its border with China.
We in the West, too, have our motives. This is not a matter of one cynical set of individuals from Eastern Europe facing a naive sect of individuals from the United States and Western Europe. We have our motives. Such a conference is a legitimate forum at which to pursue the national interests of both East and West. We often hear it said that war is a continuation of diplomacy by another means. We have not yet played out the diplomatic processes, and we hope that the negotiations will be successful.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's exposition of Soviet motives. What is his explanation of the enormous increase in the military might of the Warsaw Pact countries in recent years?

Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had attended our defence debate a few days ago he would have heard my exposition of that already. I said then that there was once a grotesque imbalance of forces between East and West and that the Soviet Union for its own motives wanted to increase its armoury. I do not share the views of some of my hon. Friends that the Soviet Union has any degree of inferiority. I believe that there is a balance, and I hope that it will be maintained, because disarmanent can continue only from a position of parity.
These CSCE negotiations must not be seen as a new departure. They must be seen as part of an on-going process. I hope that the conference can create a new plateau from which we can look back on the progress of relations between East and West over the past 10 years. I hope, too, that it will enable us to take stock of the situation and possibly codify our relations over that period. Until now these results have been underpinned by force or by the threat of force. I hope that as a result of the negotiations there will be an agreement which will help to create a less militarily-based relationship.
Détente has suffered many setbacks, but there have been significant advances. We have seen improvements in trade. I welcome the activities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in improving trade relations between Britain and the Soviet Union. We have seen technical and scientific collaboration. We see a proliferation of bilateral treaties between Russia and the Western nations. Many dangerous problems have been defused, such as that over Berlin and Germany. SALT 1 and 2 give hope that ultimately there will be nuclear force reductions. Although these achievements will not bring about the millenium they may ultimately transform the international political scene. They will, I hope, replace confrontation with negotiation and bring about a reversal of a generation of hostilities. They will create a more favourable environment in which trade can continue, and I hope that they will bring about a more prosperous and secure Europe, and from that, I hope, a more prosperous and secure world.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on what I believe should happen after the Helsinki negotiations assuming, as most of us do, that these are successful. There are some who are urging the creation of a permanent body, permanent consultative machinery, on European security. Clearly, the Soviet Union is attracted to this, but there are many cautionary voices from Western circles. Some committed Europeans of the EEC variety believe that joint East-West European negotiations would retard the economic unification of Western Europe, something which I might subscribe to as well. There are many committed Europeans who see this dialogue on a permanent basis as retarding a common defence policy in Europe and a


common foreign policy approach in Europe. Some committed supporters of NATO see a permanent relationship on security as possibly leading to the demise of NATO or to a reduction of United States' influence.
If the Helsinki conference is successful one has the choice of taking stock of the new situation and thinking very seriously about creating permanent machinery; because if the functions of the proposed authority are well defined, if we can be assured that the existing NATO presence is maintained, I see no reason why an East-West dialogue should not continue. My point is not whether permanent machinery should be set up. I ask, rather, when it should be set up, how it should be set up and where it should be set up.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I would remind the House that the debate for back benchers will conclude at about 6.30. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: When we are considering negotiations with the Soviet Union my mind goes back to the time, rather over 20 years ago, when I was personally involved in the negotiations by which Western Germany was brought into NATO, and the attitude of the Soviet Union at that time; because the Soviet Union told us that if we brought Germany into NATO we would not get an Austrian State treaty—the treaty on which we were working to bring to an end the state of war in Austria and the withdrawal of the occupying Powers from that country.
We in the West were faced with the question what we should do in the light of this ultimatum. Very rightly, we decided to go ahead with admitting Germany into NATO; and within six months not only was Germany in NATO but we had the Austrian State Treaty. I mention that example because it shows two things about negotiations with the Soviet Union; first, that it pays for the West to be united and firm and, secondly, that the Soviet Union is capable of reversing its position in international affairs much more readily than could a democracy such as ours, because the Soviet Union has no problem of persuading public opinion of the wisdom of making a sudden change.
I fear, in connection with this conference, that the West may not have insisted on enough. I shall explain later why I take that view. Meanwhile, I acknowledge the force of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State deployed and, in particular, his argument that the principles which have been agreed will provide a yardstick against which we can test Russian performance. On balance, it is right that the nations should go to Helsinki.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) had serious reservations about the wisdom of this conference. He is concerned that the conference may amount to the ratification of the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. He said, I believe, that the world will accept that conquest is acceptable for Communism. I do not go along with him in that view. I believe that the events of 1956 in Hungary, the events in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Ostpolitik, have themselves made it clear that the status quo in Eastern Europe is something which we cannot do anything about by force of arms, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) made clear. We are not, by what has been agreed at this conference, approving the Brezhnev doctrine. If the principles in basket are observed the position of countries in Eastern Europe should be better, not worse. So regarding the fear of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham that this agreement will be taken as setting the seal on the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe, I believe that it will not, unless we in the West keep saying that that is so.
My concern is a different one—the danger that the West may imagine that détente has arrived and that this conference may accelerate the process we already see towards unilateral disarmament on the part of the West, caused partly by lack of will on the part of peoples and Governments and partly by the process of inflation. The Russians regard détente as a tactic, as the continuation of subversion by other means, as a sleeping draught for the West, and they are having a good deal of success in that respect.
My analysis of Soviet motives is confirmed day by day by the continued Soviet military build-up. The point on which I feel that the Government may not have


insisted enough is that there should have been more progress on MBFR before the CSCE was concluded. I am afraid it is now too late to insist on that, except to this extent—that it ought still to be possible in Helsinki to extract from the Soviet Union some declaration of intent, which may be of some value, which we can repeat back to them if necessary, about the seriousness of their intentions at the MBFR conference.
As far as the baskets are concerned, it all depends how they are interpreted. Yesterday, I looked at the constitution of the Soviet Union, Article 17 of which says that
The right freely to secede from the USSR is reserved to every Union Republic".
So in theory Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are free to secede. Article 125 says that
In conformity with the interests of the working people and in order to strengthen the socialist system the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed by law freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings, freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
That is the kind of thing we should bear in mind when we are assessing whether these principles amount to détente or, as the Minister of State more accurately said, are—as they are in my view—only a first step in the direction of détente.
Basket 3 is one of the most important baskets. If we achieve success with this basket the conference will have been worth while. Here again our attitude should be one of scepticism. We should be saying to the Soviet Union, "We have agreed to these principles. Now show us that you will observe them. It is all very well to have family contacts, but why are you not going further than that?" We should ask, "Why are you allowing families to be reunited only if one member of the family is already outside the Soviet Union? Why are you not allowing families to leave the Soviet Union together if they wish to do so?" There will be no real détente until the Berlin Wall comes down and there is a complete change of attitude in the assumptions made by the Soviet Union—until it abandons its objective of overthrowing the capitalist way of life, which it daily repeats in its newspapers.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham in this respect; the

EEC countries have worked together extremely well throughout this conference. They have had an influence on the result and a measurable influence on the Americans. We must build on that. It is as sure as can be that sooner or later the Russians will attempt, either by the carrot or the stick, to detach one or more members from the Community. The closer we are knit together at that time the better. One of the ways we can best knit ourselves together is by evolving a common foreign policy.
The Minister of State referred to the importance of teaching the new generation—who do not remember the events of 1956 and 1968—the facts about our relations with the Soviet Union. It is up to the Government to educate the country in the realities of the Soviet system. The right hon. Member represents a Birmingham constituency and as I understand it Birmingham City education authority is distributing literature aimed at educating children in religion, including Marxism. I would like to see it and other educational authorities educating young people in the true nature of the Soviet system as it works in practice.
This would be one of the ways in which we could prevent our people from being lulled into the assumption that détente has arrived and disarmament is the order of the day. We should be educating them about the world ambitions of the Soviet Union, the history of the Soviet Union, the practices of Stalin, the treaty with Hitler, and the fact that the Soviet Union is still putting intelligent educationists, artists and writers into asylums for the insane—not concentration camps but insane asylums where they are incarcerated for years. We should be educating our children about what Solzhenitsyn, Sakharov and others have said about the nature of the Soviet régime.
I say this not because I want to perpetuate the cold war or cause tension but because I believe that if we understand the true facts about the Soviet Union it will help reduce tension. The best way to convince the Soviet Union that it must one day change its objective of overthrowing the Western world is to show it that we are not deceived by it and that we have the will to remain strong and united in our defence.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: I would have thought that all those who are genuinely concerned about peace in Europe and the world as a whole would welcome the progress made towards the Helsinki conference. I am afraid, however, that the tone of some speeches from the Opposition benches has been reminiscent of the cold war. This is unfortunate. We ought to have welcomed much more wholeheartedly what has been achieved. When we consider the objections which have been raised on the Right, we see that it is argued that we must not make any concessions which affect Western security and we must not separate agreements from progress on mutual and balanced force reductions at Vienna.
We have heard about the superiority in conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have conveniently ignored certain facts which ought to be brought out. There is no question at this stage but that the West has nuclear superiority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the debate on the Defence White Paper that there was nuclear parity. I challenged him about that in my speech at that time.
I repeat that according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute handbook of 1974, which quotes official United States estimates of total warheads on missiles and planes in the West and East, the figures are 7,940 for the United States and 2,600 for the USSR. No facts have been brought forward to refute those figures. In those circumstances we must accept that at this stage there is enormous Western nuclear superiority.
In view of this the Warsaw Pact Powers clearly argue for the maintenance of conventional superiority. I do not accept the argument of West or East on this. I consider that both sides are going down the wrong road and that it is necessary for some of us who try to speak with the voice of sanity to say that we should not argue for the increase of armaments on either basis.

Mr. Michael Mates: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the figures which he has quoted overall are broken down between the ICBM-type missiles, which are capable of launching

all-out attacks on civilisations, and tactical missiles? When that breakdown is made he can be sure that there is parity in the larger and potentially more destructive weapons.

Mr. Newens: I do not think that I am free to pursue that matter here. Outside this House I shall gladly meet the hon. Gentleman and look at the facts and the statistics and consider anything he puts forward. Nothing that I have so far seen refutes what I have said. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to do that. Those on the Right who argue against the steps towards the ECSC must recognise that the Left could equally argue against such steps on the grounds that they are meaningless because of the behaviour of the Western nations since the 1939–45 war.
Let us remember that the record of the West includes the support of such events as the pursuit of the war in Vietnam to the bitter end, during the course of which 7 million tons of explosives were dropped on Vietnam by the United States—three times the total dropped by all the combatants in the Second World War. We must remember that 3½ million acres were sprayed with defoliants and that there was a total of 6 million casualties. In those circumstances, I do not think that we can regard the case of the West as unassailable.
The Left might equally argue, as some more militant elements have argued against the Labour Left, that it is only by the use of force that essential radical social change can be achieved. I do not accept that argument, but I believe that Right wing Opposition Members should recognise that that view is taken by some people in the world today.
Opposition Members have raised the issue of Czechoslovakia. I clearly state that some Labour Members took just as strong a stand as Opposition Members on that issue. Many of us can claim to have a lot more sympathy with the concept of Socialism with a human face than can Opposition Members.
All hon. Members have a duty to seek to avoid bloodshed and suffering, and this means that we must foster co-operation throughout the world. Therefore, we should give our support to the steps which have been taken towards détente in Europe and press the Government to give every support now to the steps which


have been taken towards the conference in Helsinki.
I do not regard the achievements of the Commission at Geneva as ultimate. However, considerable progress has been made in basket 2, concerning economic co-operation.
In my view, more problems have arisen concerning the freedom of information and ideas and the access of citizens across frontiers. The record of many countries, especially the Warsaw Pact countries, leaves much to be desired in this area. The obstacles which have frequently been placed in the way of family unity and the movement of people are deplorable. By moving forward in this respect, we may help any people in Eastern European countries who have so far been deprived of the right to move across frontiers. I hope that all hon. Members will regard this as desirable.
On the other hand, let us not be completely mealy-mouthed about this issue The record of the West is not spotless. I believe I am correct in saying that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was at the Home Office when Rudi Dutschke was excluded from this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear hon. Gentlemen saying "Hear, hear". It is no good their claiming that they want complete freedom of movement of people and then arguing that it was right for a British Conservative Government to throw out somebody on the basis that Rudi Dutschke was thrown out.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) really arguing that we should allow crooks to come into this country?

Mr. Newens: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) is either extremely ignorant of the facts of this matter or extremely stupid. The argument against Rudi Dutschke had nothing to do with his being a crook. It should be deeply resented that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue in the manner he has done.
Rudi Dutschke was excluded because of his political views. We cannot argue in favour of that when we talk about what is being done at present, and when we criticise the Governments of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries

for not allowing freedom of movement towards the conference and ideas in those countries.
We must not forget that the Communist Party is illegal in Western Germany and that there are regulations about immigration. We must recognise that there are faults on both sides. However, I believe that progress is being made and that all hon. Members of good will should welcome and support the next stage in CSCE.
The next question to be asked is, how will these agreements and recommendations be carried out? We cannot just leave it to a review conference. We should aim to ensure that permanent commissions, representative of all countries, are set up as a result of the Helsinki conference—commissions that will seek to implement the agreements which have been reached. If this is not done, it may well be that no progress will be made in the long run and that these agreements will be empty words. Therefore, I feel very strongly that we should ensure and press for the implementation of the agreements by permanent commissions.
As one of those hon. Members who are extremely critical of the inadequacy of our Defence Review and who believe that we are vastly overspending on arms, I argue that we must go much further than the scope of the CSCE provides. In this respect, I am anxious that we should press on with the other discussions that are taking place at present. None the less, we should welcome and support the decision which has been taken because it represents at this stage a real step forward.
We must recognise that the whole of humanity has been spending far too much money and wasting resources on arms and means of destruction for far too many years. But at the same time it has utterly neglected the problems of world poverty and deprivation. That is something that we should never neglect.
We must recognise that with CSCE we have taken a considerable step forward in the right direction. I hope that hon. Members will give full support to that step and that we shall see in the years ahead considerable improvements in the situation.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Ian Sproat: In the few minutes left I should like to say that I very much welcome what the


Minister of State has said about hoping to sign an agreement at Helsinki.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I now understand that the Ministerial reply is not likely to begin before 6.35 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman. The reason I welcome what the Government are doing is that I believe that on balance the advantage of this agreement, as provisionally drafted, is with the West. Not only is the overall balance with the West, but the balance of each basket, to a different extent, is also with the West. This is not to say that I am blind to or under any illusions about the aims of the Soviet Union. I believe that the aims of the Soviet Union remain the same, namely, that by this conference and by other means, it seeks to alter the balance of power in Europe in its favour, to weaken and divide the West, to strengthen and consolidate its hold in Eastern Europe and to reduce its own risks in Europe as a whole in the light of the threat posed on its Chinese border, its technological and consumer failures and its various ethnic problems.
However, against that bleak background, I believe that the advantage of each basket lies with the West. It is true that in basket 1 the Soviet Union has gained what might be called a further paper formalisation of the status quo and no doubt the Soviet Union will make as much of that as it can. The fact remains that that paper formalisation is not a legal document. It does not mean that we, in the West, are legally recognising the situation as it emerged after 1945, to any greater extent than previously. In other words, the de facto and de jure situations seem to remain the same—the de jure situation because it is not a legal document and the de facto situation because it has never been our intention to invade, say Eastern Germany to reunite East and West Germany by force.
I suggest that the Russian advantage—they may see it—is negligible. It is not an advantage, because it is still possible, under the terms of this agreement, to change frontiers peaceably. I do not think that the various principles about

inviolability of frontiers, respect for sovereignty and non-recourse to force would stop the Soviet Union doing a Czechoslovakia 1968, if it wanted to do so, any more than would the prior warning of troop manoeuvres, excellent as they are in their way. None the less, by a process of Gulliverisation—that is, tying down by small threads, none binding but all having an overall restraining effect—I believe that the overall advantage is to the West.
Basket 2 is perhaps the most underestimated basket. I think that the advantage is to us, but somebody is making a big error of judgment. The West believes that commercial, industrial, scientific and technological co-operation is to its advantage because it thinks that it has more expertise, plus the magnetism which the EEC will generate. We think that somehow an increase in trade will stimulate rising expectations in Eastern Europe which will lead to dissatisfaction with the régimes there.
On the other hand, the Soviet Union clearly believes that it will get the balance of trade, that the credits which we are extending will enable it to free money to be spent on other matters and that the technological expertise that we are to give will enable it to consolidate its grip on the people under its sway.
I believe that the commercial and technological expertise of the West, particularly through the medium of the EEC, will dominate. However, the advantages—perhaps the dangers—are somewhat underestimated by the West.
Basket 3—the freer flow of people and ideas—is entirely to our advantage. I do not suggest that the advantages are great, but, such as they are, they are in our favour. Everything that we require the Soviet Union to do by way of free exchanges we are doing already. We are giving nothing that we have not already granted to others. Therefore, although these advantages are not considerable, they add up to something in the process of Gulliverisation. If the Soviet Union does not keep its word under the provisions of basket 3, it will stoke up discontent among its own and other peoples of Eastern Europe which will ultimately redound to the advantage of the West.
On basket 4, the follow-up, I accept the common wisdom that we should have another look at that in two years with a meeting not of Heads of Government but of Foreign Secretaries. There is some advantage to the West in having a permanent secretariat of some kind after two years.
Loth as I am to agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), I think that ultimately the West will have the better tale to tell. It is the Soviet Union which will break these provisions and which will be before the bar of any commission which may be set up. We should not be too scared by what I might call any provision for a platform of abuse by the Soviet Union, to which the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred, but we should walk rather slowly on this one.
Finally, I should like to echo what has been said by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Détente is no substitute for defence. There must be no relaxation of our guard. The Berlin Wall is still there, the occupying forces are still in Czechoslovakia, and the Warsaw Pact forces still outnumber NATO. In the light of these factors, it would be grotesquely dangerous for us to lower our guard for a minute. On the contrary, we should maintain and increase our guard against conventional attacks, against subversive attacks and, indeed, against psychological attacks on the West.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that the whole House would agree that this has been a useful and important debate. It fully justifies the decision by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet to make available part of a Supply Day for this purpose. It might have been better had the Government provided the time in view of the importance of the subject. Indeed, if I were in a chiding mood, I might criticise the Minister of State for not providing us with a little more information, for not arranging for statements to be made on the negotiations which have so far taken place and, indeed, for not providing at least partial texts of the documents which I understand are available to the Press. But, in view of the

right hon. Gentleman's reassuring and welcome speech this afternoon, which struck me as being sensible and striking exactly the right balance between détente, which we all want, and defence, without which we dare not be, I pass on to some of the excellent, short speeches which have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) was worried about this being "Operation Something for Nothing".
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) spoke with some force and a good deal of personal experience about the disturbing situation in Portugal.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), speaking with great experience, was anxious that in the CSCE agreements there should not be any formal recognition of the partition of our continent.
Whilst welcoming what has happened and hoping that it will make an important contribution to the peace and security of Europe, the theme running through the debate has been that we must nevertheless be cautious and ensure that it does not lead, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, to the letting down of our guard. Our attitude, therefore, is certainly one of welcome, but qualified welcome.
We welcome the progress that has been made and the prospects for the agreements being signed at the summit in the terms expressed by the Minister of State—namely, as one small step along the road to détente. I certainly take his point that, as far as younger generation is concerned, the credibility of our defence posture requires that there should also be a credible search for détente in the world as a whole.
I must qualify our welcome in terms of genuine doubts on three of four specific scores.
First, I wonder, as many of my hon. Friends have wondered, how much genuine progress towards peace and security and freedom of exchanges will arise from the CSCE agreements. I do not go along with all the rather strong comments which have been made in, for


example, the Daily Telegraph. But I notice that its reporter in Geneva, referring to the documents which he apparently had seen, wrote that the main one
consists of a number of slippery clauses painstakingly negotiated into suitable ambiguity. They are generally agreed unlikely to change the situation in Europe in the foreseeable future.
I do not endorse that particularly jaundiced view, but I think that I am entitled to ask, how much reality is likely to arise from these agreements?
Our second concern arises from the possibility that the Soviets, having made very few, if any, real concessions or movements towards the West, will be able to present the proposed treaty and, perhaps more important, the summit conference that agrees it as a major breakthrough for their "peace policy" as they describe it. The Russians have been calling for such a conference for a very long time. But I cannot help noticing that, while their words have grown more peaceful and their actions perhaps more cautious over recent years, nevertheless they have continued to arm at a pace and on a scale which has increased their military advantage vis-à-vis the West.
The Opposition are concerned that the signing of these accords should not lead the West, and some Government supporters in particular, to conclude that the danger has diminished or even disappeared and that NATO is therefore less necessary.
The view of the Opposition, and I think of the Government, is that if there has been progress towards a measure of peace and security in Europe in recent years it is precisely because NATO is strong—not because NATO is weak. We should therefore very much regret it if the Helsinki summit were to be the signal for ever more frantic demands for further reductions or dismantling of the defences of the West.
I shall come to some more precise reservations. I ask the Minister to say what is to be the exact status of these agreements. He said that they were not to be legal documents in the sense that the 35 signatory nations would regard themselves as legally bound by them under international law. They cannot therefore be enforced. If, for example,

a Jewish woman, seeking to leave the Sovet Union to join her husband in the West, were prevented from leaving, she would in law be unable to cite the Helsinki agreement under basket 3 and would not be able to appeal to any international court for redress.
The Minister said that the Soviet Union would incur the odium of world opinion. He mentioned the opinion of the Third World. I hope that he will not regard it as offensive if I say that I thought that that was the weakest part of his speech. When looking at what is happening in parts of the Third World, some of us would not regard odium from that quarter as any guarantee of the rights of European peoples.
The question arising in respect of the status of the agreement was anticipated by the former Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, when he said at the commencement of the Helsinki discussions on 5th July 1973 to the assembled Foreign Ministers,
It is time to move from general declarations of principles to their application in the lives of ordinary people.
He agreed with Mr. Gromyko, who called for a code of conduct for Europe, and said,
That is an impeccable sentiment. The pertinent question is—what is this to mean in terms of the lives of ordinary people in Europe? We cannot leave such sentiments hanging in the air. We must come down to earth.
At a time of the union of cosmonauts over Bognor Regis, I think that that is the right approach. We must come down to earth. Therefore I put a number of down-to-earth questions to the Minister.
First, will basket 3, and the agreement on the free exchange of information, mean that more British, German, American and French newspapers will freely circulate in Moscow? We obtain copies of Izvestia and Pravda in London. Why should not The Times and the Daily Express circulate in Moscow? This agreement, if accepted by the Soviet Union, should make that possible. What about broadcasts? We listen to Radio Moscow, which even gave us advice on the referendum. Are we to believe that following this agreement BBC programmes to the Soviet Union will no longer be jammed?
I next refer to the many cases of human rights. I cite the case of a Jewish physicist arrested on charges of parasitism because he had applied to emigrate to Israel. I know of the case of a Roman Catholic priest, Father Bernard, who was dealt with most severely on being convicted of preparing children for Communion. That happened in the Soviet Union. I have some sympathy with the great Soviet writer, Solzhenitsyn who said at a conference arranged by the American Federation of Labour and the CIO in New York that the CSCE should try to slow down the process of concessions but speed up the process of liberation of the Soviet people.
We are entitled to judge the reality of the CSCE by the pace at which personal freedom—including the ability to read the newspaper of our choice and to listen to the radio programme of our choice—progresses on the other side of the Iron Curtain.
We all welcome any increase in trade and exchanges between our countries provided by basket 2. I was interested in the answer which the Prime Minister gave to a Question asked today by a member of the Opposition about how far the agreement would improve the trade arrangements recently negotiated in Moscow. The United Kingdom agreed to give to the Soviet Union an enormous credit of the order of £1,000 million at a rate of interest reported to be about 7 per cent. while we borrowed a large sum from Iran at more than double that rate. When he replies, will the Minister say whether the negotiations and the summit conference which is to take place will put trading arrangements on a fairer footing, so that in our trade with the Soviet Union we do not borrow short and lend long? I do not think that to do that makes much sense.
Finally, basket 1 provides security measures. I confess that I sympathise with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion and others who found it hard to square the Soviet Union's commitment of the ten principles enunciated in basket 1 with what has happened. Take for example the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of others States. How is that to be squared with events in Hungary, Portugal and Czecholslovakia?

I was in Budapest when the Soviet Union intervened. I shall never forget the killing and fighting which occurred then. It is difficult to describe that, in terms of basket 1, as non-intervention in the internal affairs or as showing respect for human rights and fundamental freedom.
One of the most brutal acts of force to take place in Europe since the war, occurred in Czechoslovakia. We are entitled to ask how that fits in with the basket 1 principle of non-recourse to the threat of the use of force.
I next refer to the question of confidence building. I welcome the progress which has been made towards the prior notification of manœuvres and troop movements. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us more detail about that.
This is the reality. The CSCE basket 1 is not worth very much unless there is agreement and specific action to enforce it in the MBFR talks and the SALT negotiations. When the CSCE talks began they were regarded by the West as part of a package in which the MBFR and the SALT negotiations played an essential part. At that time Sir Alec Douglas-Home said that the confidence building measures touched only the fringe of the basic question of military security in Europe.
Our attitude is that we welcome the progress which has been made. We wish the summit well. But we shall judge it by what actually happens. We want to see the defence of the West maintained as the essential precondition of détente. We want to see progress at the MBFR and SALT negotiations and we shall look carefully to see whether the bold and splendid words and principles of CSCE are translated into a little more freedom, trade and peace for the people of Europe.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the representative of the Liberal Party and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat)—who speaks more often than most and, I suspect, knows more than most in the House about this subject—all gave a qualified welcome to the progress that has


been made during the last two of the CSCE negotiations, and a welcome, equally qualified, to the prospects of a summit in 14 days' time and what that summit might achieve.
I want to turn first, however, not to those right hon. and hon. Members who have welcomed what the Government and their 34 partners in CSCE hope to do, but to those hon. Members who have dealt with the possible dangers of the CSCE summit. They range from the reasonable—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in particular, who rightly referred to the dangers of overstating the advantages, success and achievements of CSCE—to the absurd—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), who compared the CSCE summit with Munich. That is something that I think will embarrass him in the years ahead.
Although he is not in the Chamber at present, the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) needs a special mention, because he condemned the entire exercise so totally and so completely that one is left in wonder that he could have remained in the Cabinet that began the exercise exactly two years ago.
I turn to the more specific criticisms and fears. Let me at once put some of them at rest. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised two specific questions—the Oder-Niesse line and the Baltic States. The Oder-Niesse line will be no more recognised or legally determined as a boundary after the Helsinki summit than it was previously. Our policy on that, de jure, will be unchanged. Similarly, we recognise the Baltic States as part of the Soviet Union de facto, not de jure. That position, too, remains unchanged.
Let me reinforce and reiterate what I said to hon. Members about the Brezhnev doctrine. The position on that is simply this: the Brezhnev doctrine, as it has come to be called, is simply the statement by the leader of one nation, made by him unilaterally and arbitrarily, to describe his views on the rights and responsibilities of the State he represented. It is no more and no less than that. There is nothing in the CSCE, nothing in any of its tenets, which endorses or upholds that doctrine. Indeed, Principle 4 of basket 1, which was finally approved for submission to the Heads of Government

yesterday, specificaly and categorically repudiates that doctrine. It is not for me or for hon. Members to decide whether others in this place will continue to say that the doctrine is valid, but they cannot do so relying on texts of the CSCE.
I turn now to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). He made a point of criticism which is important in terms of understanding the nature of the Government's policy and the character of this debate. He first complained about some of the language I used, and then apologised for complaining because he said I had used it in response to an interjection. However, he was wrong in both particulars. He is entitled to complain that Ministers should get their language right, whether it is prepared or unprepared. He was wrong to complain firstly, because it was appropriate. When I said that it was no good describing the world as how we would like to see it and that we should accept it as it is, I did not mean that I did not want to see the world changed and improved. Like most of my hon. Friends, I am in politics for that single objective. What I meant was that we should not pretend that change and improvement can come about more quickly and easily than is reasonable.
It is normally the Government side of the House which is accused of having false, naive views of how soon the world can be changed and improved, but we are not guilty of that today. Indeed, when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion described as naive those who expected too much out of the CSCE summit, I can only assume that he had in mind the hon. Member for Stretford, who actualy said that we should not sign any of these documents unless we had an assurance that the Soviet Union would move towards the Western style of democracy. If that is his view of how East-West negotiations are to be conducted, I think that he has a great deal to learn.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked, legitimately, a central question. He said, "What will come out of CSCE?". The answer is, of course, not as much as any of us hope. We would be wrong to delude ourselves about that or to pretend anything


different. That is the nature of the agreement. It is the nature of all international agreements, particularly between two systems which are so diverse and different, and in some cases so fundamentally opposed, as those of the Soviet Union and its allies and those of Western Europe.
I should like to give an example. The right hon. Member for Brighton. Pavilion is one of the many people, including the Prime Minister, who have this afternoon paid tribute to the co-ordination that has been carried on by the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to make sure that no supervision over Community affairs was exercised by the Soviet Union and its allies. He is quite right. But the Soviet Union feels very nearly the same about COMECON and the necessity to make sure that no supervision is exercised over those countries by the Western countries of the EEC.
The detailed achievements and areas in which we hope to make practical progress are always limited by the need to make agreements. That is the nature of the dilemma that has faced the negotiators. In this matter we have to press for getting the best deal that is possible and the maximum amount of concessions. We have to get a good deal. But we have to make sure that in that process we give very little. Sometimes that means that achievements we would like to see are not obtained. But equally, it means—and I think that this is fundamentally important in an area in which caution is essential—that we do not concede anything that it would be dangerous to concede. As I have said time after time, that, I hope, above all else, characterises the nature of the progress we have made over the last two years.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked about the status of the document which, hopefully, will be endorsed in Helsinki in 14 or 15 days' time. I can only repeat to him that its status remains essentially political rather than legal. If it is enforced and enforceable, it will be enforced at the bar of world opinion. It will be enforced as a result of pressure from the neutrals, who, both East and West, are, I think, anxious to impress. It will be enforced by

Members of this House and the people of this nation, by drawing the attention of other Governments to what they have promised in Helsinki and asking them to put actual flesh on the bones erected there.
That is true in two particulars, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Basket 3 talked generally about a freer flow of information. The hon. Gentleman asked whether that meant that the Daily Express and The Times will be sold in Moscow. He asked whether it meant that jamming will be reduced. Jamming is being reduced. I am open to correction, but I believe that the BBC broadcasts are no longer jammed by the Soviet Union. However, it now becomes our duty—Government, Opposition and the people alike—to build on the generality and to obtain the specifics.
That is equally true of basket 2, which sets the framework for trade. But it does not mean that any trade pattern is specified. We must build on the framework of Helsinki.
In the last two minutes of the debate, I return to perhaps the most important question that has been raised. It is a question to which, in the 120 seconds left, I cannot do great justice, but nevertheless, something must be said about it. I refer to Portugal. We need to acknowledge that Portugal is not the product of Soviet aggression. Portugal is not Hungary. It is not Czechoslovakia. If we pretend that, we are deluding ourselves—and perhaps some of us are comforting ourselves.
Portugal has come about because many of us did not take democracy in Portugal seriously enough early enough. Portugal has come about because many of us were prepared to accept any structure which did not support the Soviet Union. To put it crudely, in my blunt Yorkshire language, some felt that "They might be dictators, but at least they are our dictators". That is not an acceptable moral position, or an acceptable position in practice, as Portugal is now showing.
What CSCE is supposed to do is to break down some of these old prejudices and abandon the barriers as a result of which the tragedy which might still overcome Portugal—although all of us hope this will not be the case—is not likely to happen in other countries; that is, if East


and West can talk about political morality and understand that there are principles which are, I hope, permanently irrevocable, and which we shall observe ourselves and urge other nations to observe with the same degree of sincerity.

Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom King: I beg to move,
That this House notes with deep concern the announcement of an estimated £300 million deficit for the Post Office in the current year, only three months after the Chancellor's budget estimate was a deficit of £70 million; deplores the failure of Ministers to advance any coherent strategy to meet the critical situation of the Post Office, or to exercise any effective financial control over it; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Industry immediately to set up an independent inquiry to identify the options for the future operation of the Post Office and to make recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses the Government objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability'.

Mr. King: This is the latest chapter in the very sad and clearly quickening saga of the problems of the Post Office. Public confidence in what used to be one of the prides of our nation—the efficiency and economy of the Post Office—was undoubtedly enormously weakened by the price increases and problems of last March, and that weakened confidence has had no chance to re-establish itself before this latest bombshell—one can use no lesser word—has broken on the British people. Charges are to be yet further increased. To many people, it seems that the Post Office's financial system is out of control and that the Government and the management are at a loss to know what to do about it.
Our Post Office can still stand comparison on an international basis, but anyone who looks further than the present situation recognises that the trends are extremely worrying. The service is deteriorating, and costs are rocketing. It is right that we should address ourselves to this situation.
On 15th April the deficit was indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as


£70 million. A hint appeared in The Guardian of 29th April, which reported:
The Post Office yesterday denied reports that its published estimates for a 1975–76 deficit of £50 million relied on faulty arithmetic and that a more recent assessment of the sums produced a loss figure of about £300 million.
The Guardian also included a statement from the Post Office that no further price increases were envisaged for the present calendar year. We see a story in the Daily Express today, however, which alleges that the Treasury has claimed that the Post Office gave false figures about its profits this year and that part of the Chancellor's Budget Statement was based on these figures. The report says:
Senior Treasury officials claim that Mr. Healey had not tried to disguise the corporation's financial plight, but that the Post Office had hidden the truth, hoping that there would be a further State aid later this year.
That is a very serious allegation indeed. It is not for us to enter into inter-governmental arguments of this nature but obviously the House must be concerned that within a week of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement I was told in a Written Answer that the Chairman of the Post Office had been to see Ministers to inform them that the expected loss would be rather greater than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had anticipated. What is the House and the country to think when within three months of the statement by the Chancellor—who presumably has access to the best information—that the loss was to be £70 million it becomes clear that the deficit is £300 million? What confidence can we have that it is now £300 million if within three months £230 million is added to the first forecast? This is the acute worry of those of us who are concerned about the problems of inflation and the Government's own finances. The Government amendment
regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office.
That might have been a good amendment if it had been tabled 12 months ago. It is not so good now that the Chancellor has assessed the total liability of such financial limitations as might have been responsible for the present situation at £70 million. Where has the further £230 mil-

lion come from? I can understand the Government's difficulty in trying to find an amendment which would command some sort of support in the House but I hope we will not face the problems of the Post Office by looking backwards. If this is going to degenerate into a "Yah boo, it was your fault, no, it was yours" sort of argument we shall never tackle the real problems which everyone in the Post Office recognises it is facing.
In the second half of the Government's amendment, reference is made to the objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability. I do not think anybody would seriously challenge that objective, but we are bound to consider the Government's strategy, and whether it is likely to work. Our motion deplores the failure of Ministers to advance any coherent strategy to meet the critical situation of the Post Office or exercise any effective financial control over it, and when one looks at the size of the deficit one sees that no further illustration is needed to explain what is meant by the exercise of effective financial control.
The objective of phasing out the deficit is extremely worthy, but it is to be met by enormous price increases. When we talk of a coherent strategy, we mean that the Government should speak with one voice. In the Second Reading debate on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill on 9th June, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
The alternative of large price increases can be self-defeating in some industries. We are seeing signs of it in the postal services, where large price increases result in falling sales, making it even more difficult for the industry to pay its way, and, in the longer term, it must affect employment prospects."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 56.]
That is precisely right. There is every evidence that the strategy followed in the March round of price increases is having exactly that effect. Rising prices are causing a rapid decline in traffice. I was told in a Written Answer yesterday that first-class traffic had fallen by 26·2 per cent. over the corresponding period last year. In reply to a similar question a month after the price increases, I was told that the fall in first-class traffic had been 25 per cent. The evidence therefore is that there is an increasing shift away from first-class traffic.
There has been no information from the Minister on metered traffic, so we still do not know what is actually happening to business metered traffic. My understanding is that a tremendous number of businesses which are acutely conscious of the costs they face in all directions, have taken tough action on the procedures they follow over mail. When the metered figures come through I think we shall see that they are substantially down.
I turn now to the telephone service. A lot of people do not appreciate the interaction of the changes in the unit time and unit cost. Since 1970 the charge for a six-minute local call at peak time will, following these increased charges, have gone up by 600 per cent. I know of businesses where the staff are not permitted to post a first-class letter without the authority of the manager. I know of instances where similar controls are exercised over telephone calls. It was not until the last round of telephone increases that many people realised that it was cheaper to telephone in the afternoon than in the morning, and that a number of actions to reduce costs were open to businesses.
The Government are embarking on a strategy of yet further price increases as though they are confident that that is the way to solve the deficit. Yet they admit, and the Minister of State admitted it in his answer to me yesterday, that they do not yet know what the effect of the last round of price increases has been.
I have referred on the postal side to the absence of any evidence on the effect on metred traffic. Such evidence as we have points to a drop of 26.2 per cent. on first-class traffic and a drop of 8½ per cent. on the estimate of total traffic. On telephones, I asked what evidence there was of a reduction in telephone usage, and I was given a remarkable answer which said
We have spoken with the Post Office, which points out that it is too early to judge the impact of the recent tariff increases".
There is then another paragraph and the answer then goes on to say that the
judgment is that the impact of the tariff increases has been substantially as was assumed when the increases were proposed."—[Official Report, 14th July, 1975; Vol. 895, c. 364.]
I am prepared to believe the first answer, which is honest and right. What evid-

ence is there that the drop is not substantial?
It is worth considering how some of these price increases are being proposed. In the latest POUNC letter to people asking for a comment on the telephone tariff increase it is stated that the Post Office has chosen to increase charges because that will enable people to mitigate their cost by reducing their usage. What would the Price Commission say to a bread manufacturer who said, "You cannot complain about the price increase because people can eat less if they do not like the higher price." One needs to look carefully at the figures in the POUNC report. The report has not been widely circulated. It estimates that average increase in cost for a business in terms of telephone calls will be from £155 to £262 in a year. That is obviously quite a small business. Other businesses with substantial telephone usage will suffer equivalent very substantial increases.
We therefore face a situation in which the increase in postal charges will have gone up this year from 4½p first class to 8½p, and in which telephone charges will have risen 600 per cent. since 1970. One can see just how far price escalation has gone. The last round of increases evoked an enormous storm. POUNC said that it had never before had such a substantial number of protests. I wonder what the impact of this increase will be, and I wonder whether Ministers have estimated what is likely to happen to some of the essential traffic elements. Take mail order, for example. I have seen figures quoted which show that following the latest increase in March, mail order companies arranged to avoid sending 20 per cent. of their traffic through the post, relying instead on alternative arrangements. It is now estimated that as much as 50 per cent. of this traffic may be sent by alternative means.
The Minister of State will be aware of the reports made by mail order publishers and publishers in general who were faced with tremendous increases in costs at the previous round and for many of whom the present increase will spell disaster. I wonder what the increases will do to the Christmas card trade. It is ironic that in the mail today I should have received a note about the House of Commons Christmas card issue. I hope that there


will not be too big a print order, under your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it will cost 6½p to send cards and this is bound to have a serious effect on the numbers posted.
I was advised that the previous increases made a considerable amount of direct mail more marginal and put a lot of it out of court. These increases will certainly kill a substantial amount of valuable traffic which the Post Office has been trying to develop through its marketing departments. In its last report POUNC drew attention to the value of the commercial and business traffic to the Post Office, and how this very important part underpinned a lot of overheads and general costs. If there is a substantial fall in that traffic the implications are obviously extremely serious.
The other aspect—and this is what worries me about the Government's strategy—concerns telegrams. In March it was possible to send a 10-word telegram for 60p. If these increases go through the minimum charge will be £1·40p. Many people think that the minimum charge is 70p but it is, in fact, 70p plus 7p for each word. One can send a telegram for 70p, but if one wants to put anything in it the cost will be £1·40p.
Is the Post Office trying to price itself clean out of the market? In my constituency telegrams are very much a life-line for poor members of the community, particularly for those who cannot afford a telephone. How are they to manage if the cheapest way of making urgent contact with a member of their family will cost £1·40p or more? What concerns me is that what is happening with the telegram may be carried through into the postal side.
There are various items on which I should like the benefit of the Minister's advice. One of the things the Post Office is worried about is the pension fund. On 9th June the then Minister of State, Treasury said:
the circumstances surrounding the deficiency are complex and we are still discussing with the Post Office the best way to deal with it." —[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 152.]
Has there been any resolution of that problem yet?
Secondly, I presume that the costs, charges and estimates were worked out

on the basis of the on-going wage commitments of the Post Office. I understand that one of those commitments is a form of cost of living adjustment of 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. rise in the cost of living index. Under the Government's anti-inflation policy, will that cost of living bonus be controlled, and will it affect the amount that the Post Office will have to pay out in the present year? I understand from page 5 of the White Paper that this will be one of the contractual obligations that the Post Office will be entitled to terminate.
Thirdly, on the particular provision regarding the cuts in services and the changes in services, the newspaper account said that it was proposed to delay second class mail to the third day. Is it intended to delay all second class mail to the third day, so as to try to ensure some advantage for first class post and to try to prevent any further deterioration in traffic? Further, the Minister of State refused on an earlier occasion to give me an undertaking, in view of the financial situation of the Post Office, that there will be no further proposal from the Government to extend any further public ownership into telephone manufacturing and to extend the Post Office's activities in that area. Is it not clear that in the present situation, given the problems that management so clearly faces in the Post Office, it would be sheer lunacy to try to expand the Post Office's remit yet further into telephone manufacturing?
Our motion calls for an independent inquiry. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) is present and that he is chairing a Select Committee on this very subject. I think that my hon. Friend will accept the magnitude of the problem and the scale of the public's concern over a situation which calls for something even more wide-ranging than the remit of a Select Committee. Obviously we shall look with great interest at the Select Committee's report. It will be most valuable material for an independent inquiry. There is also need for something more than a view by POUNC, I am not surprised that Lord Peddie said how appalled he was at the way in which events have proceeded. On the 3rd January the


council was sent some urgent representations regarding the largest increases ever. It was told that its answers had to be received by the end of January. Apologies were made and it was said that that situation would never be repeated. What happened? On 16th July the council received further urgent representations regarding further increases and the council has to make its representations by early August. In other words, the council received the same three weeks' notice in which to consider massivley important and far-reaching proposals for the future of the Post Office.
The situation that I have described puts the council in an impossible situation. We believe that an inquiry must consider the options that are now facing the Post Office. It will have to consider whether the management set-up and the organisation of the Post Office in its present structure is right, or whether it should be divided into two separate corporations. It will have to consider whether it is realistic to have a chairman and chief executive doubling in the same rôle—one man doing the two jobs. What is the scope for reductions in manning?
The POUNC Report in paragraph 22—this was a prelude to the March increases—stated:
We are convinced that in the Post Office, as in most large organisations, there is considerable scope for cost reductions which would not prejudice quality of service or employment. We were disappointed to find no evidence of realisation by the Post Office of the vital need for such action.
That is a very serious charge to make, but unfortunately that is the belief that many members of the public share. Against that background it is clear that if the public are to recognise the problems faced by the Post Office and the options that are before it, and if they are to have any confidence that the Government, the Post Office management, the unions and the House are taking any interest in these problems, an urgent independent inquiry should be held in order to report on the problems.
If we do not proceed with an inquiry, it seems that the Government strategy will be a steady deterioration of service, and a rapid increase in price. There will then not be minor changes on the margin—for example, no second rural deliveries and other rural services being cut—but the whole national service will be rapidly

taken outside the range of a considerable number of people. Anyone who has read the Age Concern pamphlet will know that that is a real problem—namely, that Post Office services are being priced out of people's pockets. People are asking whether there is any price level at which the Post Office can provide an acceptable service and still make a profit.
That is why we welcome the opportunity that this debate provides. That is why we censure the Government for their lack of any coherent strategy. That is why we call for an urgent and immediate independent inquiry into the future of the Post Office.

7.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses the Government objective of phasing out the deficits of the nationalised industries and restoring them to profitability'.
I always listen with considerable interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with considerable authority on the Post Office. Indeed, he worked closely with the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in the first few years of the life of the Post Office as a public corporation when the working relationship between it and the Government was being established. However, I am a little disappointed having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech tonight. It was less constructive than I had hoped. It was less constructive than the speeches and debates which we have had in the House over the past few years. During that time I think that genuine attempts were made by both sides of the House to put forward constructive proposals to the Government of the day.
I know that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) does not see it ever as his duty to put anything constructive before the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is afraid that he is storing up hostages for the future. It is unfortunate that perhaps the hon.


Member for Bridgwater is following his example. From our point of view, and from the point of view of those who have taken part in Post Office debates over many years, the hon. Gentleman's speech was not what we expected from him.
Before I discuss the motion and the amendment I shall make a few general observations. It is obvious, yet none the less necessary to make the point, that we are discussing the Post Office against the background of an unprecedented rate of inflation in this country, at least in modern times, and a rate higher than that of many Western European countries. Until we get inflation under control—and our White Paper published last week shows we are determined to do so—the difficulties being faced by the Post Office will continue.
Inflation hits hard all nationalised industries, but the Post Office, with its very large number of employees and its high wage bill, is perhaps more vulnerable than most. I have no doubt that this evening many criticisms will be made. But it is part of the value of a debate such as this that it gives the House of Commons an opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chairman and the Board of the Post Office how public opinion sees the organisation for the management of which they are responsible. However, criticisms which ignore the high inflation in which the Post Office has to operate would be unconstructive and unfair.
The second point I want to make is that though I am happy to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions and to defend the Post Office so far as the Government's responsibilities are involved—that is my job—I do not run the Post Office. There is no longer a Postmaster-General. If Conservatives want me to defend every dot and comma of the Post Office's proposals or to justify every action the corporation has taken the implication is that they want the Post Office reconstituted as a Government Department. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect Ministers to accept responsibility for everything a nationalised industry does and at the same time criticise them for excessive intervenion in its affairs.
It is not many weeks ago that my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry was loudly criticised by the Opposition when he sought to comment on the loss of jobs in the steel industry. This is a matter that concerned a great many of us at that time.
Another fundamental question is whether the Post Office is to be run as a social service or as a commercial organisation. The statute that made the Post Office an independent corporation provided for the latter and I believe that to be right. The Post Office has its social obligations under the Act and it takes them seriously. But this does not relieve it of its statutory obligations to pay its way. The corporation the unions and the Government are united in the belief that this should be so.
Another question I want to pose is how far the taxpayer or the consumer should pay for the Post Office services bearing in mind that the taxpayer is the man in the street. We believe that the consumer should pay—and pay according to the use he makes of the service. Industry and commerce are the main users of the Post Office and I do not see why the taxpayer should subsidise their telephone calls or their mail. We have never concealed the fact that getting the nationalised industries back to realistic prices will be painful. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear. But we are determined to phase out these subsidies and we are ready to accept the consequences.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater was at pains to say that in a debate such as this we should not look to the past, but since the Conservatives were in charge of Post Office affairs for four years out of the five years since 1970, we are entitled as a House to look critically at what happened over that four-year period. I remind the House that the basic reason why the Post Office—this also applies to other nationalised industries—has had to make a succession of price rises is that the previous Government artificially held their prices down from 1971 onwards.
Let us remember that the Post Office Corporation in the first years of its existence made a modest profit—as the old Post Office did. In 1971–72 its profit was £36 million. But the imposition by the


Conservative Government of price-controls immediately put them into a deficit situation. In 1972–73 that deficit was £64 million and in 1973–74 it had reached £128 million. Furthermore, the corporation's difficulties were sharpened by the increasing rate of inflation. As a result, the Post Office deficit in 1974–75 exceeded £300 million and it was estimated at the beginning of this calender year that, if no remedial action were taken, it could reach £700 million in 1975–76.
Tariff increases, which were implemented in the spring, were designed to reduce the 1975–76 deficit to £50 million at 1974 prices—or £70 million at current prices. The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Daily Express. I had my attention drawn to that matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe everything I read in the Daily Express. Furthermore, I hope that the House will not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on that piece. However, the deficit is now estimated at £300 million. This must be a matter of great concern to each and every one of us.
In explanation, let me first say that when the Post Office prepared the forecasts on which its spring tariff increases were based, the board assumed a narrower interpretation of the social contract than proved to be the case. It also assumed a rate of inflation for 1975–76 which proved optimistic. In the event, wage increases were higher than had been allowed for.
These higher levels of payment, along with their internal consequences for pensions, added £137 million to the estimated deficit. Secondly, the growth of the telephone business has—because of the downturn in the economy—been slower than the Post Office expected. This might have added as much as a further £50 million to the estimated deficit. The remainder is made up chiefly of general cost increases arising from the high rate of inflation.
In this situation there were three practical choices—first, increasing the subsidy, which would in turn have increased public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirements; secondly, accepting a large deficit which also would have increased the public sector borrowing requirement; or thirdly, having sought all due economy, increasing tariffs.

The last was the only one consistent with the Government's general policy for the management of the economy—the objective of phasing out nationalised industry deficits in 1976–77. It was also the only course consistent with encouraging the proper commercial outlook in the Post Office.
Nothing has been more damaging to efficiency in nationalised industries than the continual run of large deficits. That is why the Post Office is putting forward these proposals for tariff increases. At the same time on telecommunications it is taking an opportunity to seek not just to break even but to earn the 2 per cent. on turnover permitted under the Price Cede. One important effect which this will have will be to increase the proportion of the telecommunication investment programme which is internally financed. The programme is a massive one amounting to £810 million in 1975–76.
In the face of all these difficulties the Government have taken positive steps to restore the situation. First, we are determined to restore financial disciplines—disciplines which the payment of continual subsidies has eroded. Secondly, earlier this year we strengthened the Post Office Board through the appointment of a Finance Director and of four distinguished part-time members. Thirdly, we are securing an improved flow of information from the Post Office to the Government on lines recommended by Sir Henry Benson.
The proposals include the provision of corporate plans for each of the main businesses, an annual budget and quarterly return of performance against budget on both finance and physical indicators. They are designed to recognise the legitimate interest of Government in the long-term strategy and efficiency of the Post Office without our getting involved with day-to-day management. All these proposals closely accord with the recommendations on corporate planning made at the end of 1973 by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
Fourthly, whilst we appreciate the savings to be effected by the Post Office, with the help of the trade unions concerned, we as a Government will continue to encourage and support the Post Office in measures to reduce costs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State


has made it very clear to the Post Office Board that the Government are looking for the most rigorous economies in the future.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries to see whether there is any truth in the report that £100,000 has been spent on the venetian blind escapade, to which no doubt he has had his attention drawn?

Mr. Mackenzie: I have heard about the venetian blinds, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry will take that point on board in his reply.

Mr. Lewis: I asked that question of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, not of my hon. Friend who is to reply. If there is any truth at all in the story, he must be able to give some answer. I do not know whether the figure involved is £100,000, £10,000 or £1,000. Is it true that these people are spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money to install electrically-operated venetian blinds in their building?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am concerned about the matter, but at present I am seeking to deal with the broader strategy of the Post Office. I take my hon. Friend's point and I shall see that it is dealt with by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Mackenzie: No, I shall not give way again.

Mr. Lewis: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Gentleman has been given a reply by the Minister—

Mr. Lewis: He has not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to pull up the blinds, he can do so at some other time.

Mr. Mackenzie: My hon. Friend has made his point about venetian blinds and I am sure that those who are concerned with Post Office affairs will put that item high on their list of priorities.
I have to ask the House to recognise that some of the changes which may have to be introduced in the services may not

be palatable. However, it is no good complaining, on the one hand, about the deterioration of the Post Office's financial position, and on the other refusing to entertain the possibility of cost savings through reductions in the services provided.
The motion moved by the hon. Member for Bridgwater calls for an independent inquiry into the affairs of the Post Office. We do not reject in principle the idea of independent inquiries into the nationalised industries. Indeed, we have appointed a committee under Lord Plowden which has conducted such an inquiry into the electricity industry.
We do, however, believe that such inquiries must be set up only when they can make a positive long-term contribution to the development of the industry. We reject entirely their use as some kind of political gimmick, particularly when the proposals come from those whose contribution, when they had power, was far less than ours and who bear the greater part of the responsibility of the problems of the Post Office.

Mr. Tom King: Will the Minister reconsider that last statement? He has accused me of not making constructive suggestions. The Post Office is a very complex business and it would be a presumptuous hon. Member who gave a blueprint on how it should operate. Moreover, the Minister commenced his remarks by making the point that he does not run the Post Office. Then he accused my hon. Friends and myself of failing to run the Post Office properly—he recognises that there is a difference. Wherever the suggestion comes from, he knows that it also comes from outside bodies. Therefore, will he give it serious consideration?

Mr. Mackenzie: I said that we do not reject in principle the proposition of setting up inquiries into any of the nationalised industries. I was simply pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that I should like to have heard from him—in addition to just putting this forward—some kind of contribution about the affairs of the Post Office as a whole, because he is as aware of them as any Conservative Member.
In this connection the House will not wish me to ignore the important contribution made by the Post Office Users'


National Council and hon. Members will know that a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is currently examining an important aspect of Post Office work.
I do not claim—nor does the Post Office Board—that all is perfect in the Post Office. We know that, as in any other large organisation, there are problems to be solved. But I believe that the Post Office is conscious of them and with the help of the trade unions therein is seeking to resolve them. Post Offices throughout the world and certainly all countries in Western Europe are in difficulties as of this moment in time. We all realise that. There are no easy options. I am willing—as is the Secretary of State—to listen to any positive and constructive suggestions which may be put to us from time to time. Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater I find it difficult to accept suggestions from an Opposition which, when they were the Government, saw the first major strike in the Post Office and caused the first major deficit. In contrast this Government are taking constructive steps to help the Post Office and it is in that spirit that I ask the House of Commons to accept the amendment to the Opposition motion which has been tabled tonight.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Government's amendment speaks of their objective of phasing out the deficits. I had hoped that the Minister would tell us something of the strategy for phasing out the deficits. However, we have not heard this at all.
It seems strange for a Minister who has just delivered this speech to be complaining about a lack of constructive suggestions, because he has not regaled the House, as was his duty, with any suggestions either from the Government or, presumably, from the Post Office, that could be labelled constructive. Unless the statement about the Government's objective of phasing out deficits is substantiated or some effort is made to clothe it with credible plans, we must suppose that the Government are putting over a confidence trick on the nation.
My hon. Friends and I are not satisfied that the elimination of the Post Office deficit is attainable unless there is legislation to remove the Post Office mono-

poly on letters and to alter the whole strategy of the Post Office in relation to charges. The situation is a spiralling one, and not a word that the Minister has said indicates that the spiral can be cut off. So far, the message to the public from this debate is that they face an endless series of hopeless, overall, ham-handed price increases, none of which will succeed in making the Post Office break even.
This leads me back to the letter monopoly.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman referred to an endless spiral. In my researches for today's debate the most chilling remark I found was a statement apparently made by the Post Office that it could not rule out further price increases this year.

Mr. Wainwright: Indeed, that is an approach to honesty to which the Minister did not refer, which is significant. If the House of Commons is to fulfil one of its main functions, namely, to be a forum to which the nation can look for enlightened information, it is important that Ministers should come clean on this matter. If it is the fact, as I believe, that no phasing out of the deficit is in sight, this should be plainly admitted.
The Post Office monopoly in letters is enormously important because it is the most pervasive monopoly in the land. People can even obtain an alternative water supply if they are resourceful, and thus circumvent the otherwise natural monopoly in water.
However, this is not the case with letters, perhaps except in the case of a gigantic corporation, because in that respect size is quite undeservedly rewarded. For instance, other nationalised industries show little spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood towards the Post Office. Because of their size they often deliver their own missives to their customers. However, the ordinary medium-sized or small business is in the grip of the Post Office letter monopoly, and the individual citizen even more so.
Therefore, in supporting the Conservative amendment, as I intend to recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to do, I hope that we shall hear from the Opposition spokesman at the conclusion of the debate that the inquiry that they


propose does not necessarily start from the assumption that the monopoly must be retained. Nor, I hope, will it start from the position that letter rates must be identical throughout these islands, irrespective of the distance the letter has to travel or the complications of is journey.
My hon. Friends and I do not believe there will be any salvation for the Post Office by simply adding to the overall standard of tariffs for first and second-class mail.
The monopoly does not extend to parcels and newspapers. I have never been able to understand why there should be a monopoly in letters when it is not thought necessary to extend to the carriage and delivery of valuable parcels. I am not suggesting any sudden plunge into a completely new system or structure for the carriage of mail, nor, indeed, necessarily a sudden nation-wide plunge into differential rates for the carriage of letters by the Post Office. However, I believe that pilot experiments are urgently necessary and I hope that they can be woven into the inquiry which is proposed in the motion before us tonight. Until properly-mounted pilot experiments have been made, no one can tell what is the best arrangement for Post Office finances.
For instance, there are rural communities, one of which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), where the Post Office has abandoned responsibility for the daily delivery of mail. The people who are thus suffering are never given the opportunity to say whether they would be willing to pay a higher price for mail to be assured of a daily delivery. That option is not put before them.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Have any of the constituents of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) written to the Scottish Post Office Users' Council about the matter?

Mr. Wainwright: My hon. Friend's constituents have done that, but the answer is that under present legislation the option is not available to them.
I should like to see two experiments carried out locally. I have to be realistic, and I admit that both experiments would have to be carried out

initially in urban areas. The first experiment should be in differential charges in favour of local mail. The imposition of the 8½p first-class rate for carrying a letter from a housebound invalid to a relative on the other side of a small town is an intolerable charge. The Post Office cannot get out of it by saying that it would be cheaper to telephone, because the telephone service is still not available to a vast section of the population.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office collects local mail, puts it on a train, sends it 50 miles away to be sorted, brings it back and delivers it?

Mr. Wainwright: That was not known to me, but it is an interesting addition to the dossier. There is no doubt that for delivery in the same average-sized town a great many of the charges borne by longer-distance letters are virtually eliminated—the station services, conveyance by contractors and, no doubt, a considerable part of the cost of inward and outward sorting. I should look to a reduction of about 25 per cent. as a guess if the true cost of local mail were applied to the first-class rate.
Secondly, I should like to see a local pilot experiment in competition. Until there is competition, the true facts of the situation will never be known. If in the past the theoretical calculations of the Post Office, without the benefit of practical experiment, had been reasonably accurate, I would not raise the question of experiments in other ways of dealing with the mail but, as we are confronted with such a series of gigantic errors in the theoretical calculations, it seems to me that the empirical approach is necessary.
There is some support for that view in the report of the Post Office for the year ended 31st March 1974, one sentence of which reads as follows:
The only sound basis for Post Office operations is the provision of services which the customer wants and for which he is prepared to pay the true cost.
If the customer wants to have a letter delivered by breakfast-time across his home town, the Post Office is saying in its report that it should be able to charge him the true cost. Manifestly, the Post Office does not do so at present. It charges him what it estimates in a purely


theoretical way to be his share of the overall cost of delivering letters throughout the kingdom. That is not the true cost of which the Post Office speaks in its most recent report.
The true cost can never be accurately decided unless, at any rate in some parts of the country, there is competition by which to test the Post Office estimates of true cost. We cannot establish the true cost unless a competitive situation exists somewhere at some time. That is why I hope that either with an inquiry, or as an early result of an inquiry, pilot experiments of this kind will be conducted.
I have confined myself to the letter service because that is the monopoly aspect which I want to stress. One result of the introduction of pilot experiments, and of notice being served on the Post Office that the old ways are no longer sacrosanct, is likely to be a great deal more freedom, incentive and local accounting for local managers. The local managers of the Post Office—the head postmasters, and so on—in spite of certain improvements in their lot, are still the interpreters of the rule book rather than the local entrepreneurs of the Post Office.
Any chamber of commerce or chamber of trade which has had regular interviews with head postmasters usually ends up by feeling sympathetic with the poor chap who is not allowed to follow up his own ideas or ideas fed to him by his local community, but is mainly there to quote the rule book to those who have complaints or grievances. If there were an atmosphere of loosening up the ancient structure of the Post Office we could achieve a greater degree of incentive or even some autonomy for local managers of the postal services.
If we can be assured at the end of the debate that the inquiry which the Conservatives seek will not start with certain sacred assumptions and will include the possibility of experiments being recommended on a pilot and local basis, I shall recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Opposition motion.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I feel sorry for my hon. Friend the Minister of State because I appreciate that what he did was to read, very ably, the brief which had been prepared for him,

no doubt by the Post Office—by those who had been accused and found guilty—without commenting upon the obvious stupidity of the brief which he read.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Having sat up until 3 o'clock in the morning and having risen by 7 o'clock, to write the speech myself, I take exception to the comments made by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Lewis: I withdraw what I said completely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my hon. Friend sat up until 3 o'clock in the morning writing his speech and if he drew all the facts and figures from his own mind, I must attack him and not the Post Office.
My hon. Friend told the House that the Post Office made a mistake in its budgeting and the £70 million should have been £300 million. If my hon. Friend says that he and not the Post Office made that mistake, I accept his word. I thought that the Post Office had made that little mistake between £70 million and £300 million because it did not know that there was inflation.
It reminds me of that old story of the pianist in the four ale bar saying that he did not know what was going on upstairs. Everybody else in the bar knew, including the boys and girls who were going upstairs, but not the pianist.
Did not the Post Office know that there was not merely inflation but rampant inflation? Did not it know that Post Office workers were asking for increases? One could understand if it were a small difference but here we have a budgeting difference between £70 million and £300 million. There is far too much of Parkinson's Law rampant among the top executives in the Post Office.
I have never dealt with any organisation in 40 years in public life—30 years in his House—which has so rapidly deteriorated and is so shockingly difficult to get to. It is almost impossible to get to anyone concerning these difficulties. When I write to my right hon. Friend or to any of the other people concerned they keep it or play about with it and eventually they tell me to take it up with the Post Office. I have written to Sir William Ryland but I can never get a reply from him. It is always the assistant managing director or deputy managing director or a chief executive or


some other highly paid person. What one eventually receives is the kind of formal acknowledgment that could have been sent within a few days but it takes weeks to get anything back from the Post Office. I have tried month after month and year after year to get legitimate complaints dealt with but have not been able to get them dealt with satisfactorily at all.
We know that members of the public do not usually go to their MPs unless they have themselves first tried to get matters resolved at local level. It is because they have been frustrated and cannot get satisfaction that they come to their MPs. If an MP finds that he and his constituents have reason to regard the services as shocking, at least the head of the concern ought to be able to deal with some of these problems.
The trouble has increased almost annually since the setting up of the so-called Post Office Corporation. Dare I mention that it was at the behest of the right hon. Member for Miami—or should I say Australia?—that this was set up? I opposed him at the time. I said then that I did not want to give up the opportunity of day-to-day questioning and day-to-day debates and arguments. I thought it would land us in trouble and it has, because the service is deteriorating with every price increase that is imposed.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, can remember that 40 or 50 years ago one could pay a penny—a half-penny at the present rate—and post a letter in any part of London, up till about 9 o'clock at night, and it would be delivered without fail the next day, possible even by the first post. There were eight or nine collections during the day and three or four deliveries. That was at a time before we had fast trains, before we had fast motor cars, and before we had electronic aids and sorters. Now we have not only fast trains and electronic sorters but an 1,800 per cent increase in price, and the prices are still going up even further.
If one does not get a letter into the first-class post by about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, one cannot expect to have it delivered the next day from one borough in London to another. The Post Office knows about this because it has piles of correspondence from me. I have had

to deliver my own mail from Westminster to Stratford, just down the road, because I could not be sure of getting it there if I posted it after 5 p.m., even with first-class priority. Indeed, I had one case—this is in the 1970s, not the 1870s—of a letter posted at County Hall, London SE1, not County Hall, Buckingham, marked "urgent" and posted first class, with priority, at County Hall. It was from the Clerk to the County Council and it took exactly a week to get from one side of Westminster Bridge to the other. I am still waiting for an explanation from the Post Office why this delay should occur. I repeat that this is in the 1970s, not the 1870s.
I challenge anyone to say that he can post a letter from one part of London to another and be sure of having it delivered next day. I am talking about letters not to the wilds of Scotland but to other parts of London.
Last year, on 13th September, I suddenly remembered my wife's birthday and that I had not sent her a card. Realising that it was midday on the day before her birthday, I immediately rushed out and bought a card. I was going to put a first-class stamp on it and post it at the post office. The sorting office is at the top of my road. Just as I was putting it in the box, the chap came to collect the mail at 1.30 p.m. I told him that it was a card for my wife's birthday and that it must get there first thing in the morning. I asked him if it would be all right. He said that I could not rely on it. I pointed out that the address was only just down the road. He told me: "What happens is that we collect it now, we take it all the way up to Mount Pleasant where it is sorted and then it comes all the way back." This is a farcical situation.
That is not the worst of it. I read a letter, which has not been disproved, stating that a person in the Norwich area posted a letter for local delivery in Norwich. It was put on the train and sent to Norwich, and then from Norwich to Peterborough and back from Peterborough, before it was delivered locally in the Norwich area. Well might the cost be excessive when this sort of thing goes on.
This is not the fault of the postman who does the work. This is the fault of the £27,000-a-year people. When I went


to see Sir William Ryland, because I could not get satisfaction locally, I was met at the door by one flunkey, taken to another flunkey, and then to another flunkey at the lift. Eventually I went up to the people who were expecting me. I was met by a large number of top executives. The Post Office is overstocked with over-paid top people who should be getting down to the job of ensuring that the service gets back at least to the efficiency of 50 years ago.
Is it too much to ask for that on a day when there is a link-up in space between the Americans and the Russians, and when people are able to go to the moon? Today one cannot be sure of getting a letter delivered on time, no matter what one pays, even 1,800 per cent. extra. I do not think that the ordinary Post Office workers are getting 1,800 per cent. more than they used to get. No doubt that is what Sir William is getting. But still one cannot get a letter from one London borough to another the following day or be sure that it will be delivered.
When one turns to the telephone service it is almost the same. It is quite right, as has been said, that old-age pensioners cannot now afford the telephone, which for many of them is their only means of contact with their friends or relatives. Many old people have bad legs and cannot walk well enough to get out. Some cannot afford to send letters. Some cannot write. Now things are getting to the stage when they cannot afford to telephone. This state of affairs should not be allowed to continue.
I am a great supporter of the Post Office worker and I think he does a good job in difficult circumstances, but there is an urgent need for some inquiry to be made into the administration—I should probably have said maladministration—of the top people.
I resent the attitude of mind resulting in the appointment of what are called part-time members. What on earth are we coming to in this respect? I read recently of a well-known figure who is violently opposed to wage increases—wages, not incomes—and who is much in favour of wage restraint and wage reduction. He is always attacking the trade unions. He writes articles at £300 and £400 a time and is well paid for appear-

ing on radio and television, where he is always saying that wages should be cut down. Then I pick up a newspaper and I discover that his wife has been made part-time chairman of a board at a salary of £7,000 a year. How much will these part-timers get? Probably more than the postmen. That is very good. But I should prefer to see people doing a job and getting paid for it, which is not the case now.
I am afraid that I cannot support the Government amendment. I have not seen any improvement. I cannot see any improvement being made until someone kicks in the pants those top executives in the Post Office Board. If that does no good, they should be kicked out and replaced by others who can do the job.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I very much enjoyed the speech calling for a return to the good old days from the Conservative Member—for this evening—for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I am not sure whether there will be room for the hon. Gentleman permanently on the Opposition benches, but at least he pointed out that progress does not always bring improvement with it. Certainly that seems true of the Post Office.
I never believed that the Minister of State had not written his own speech. From time to time, we are amused by his turn of phrase. This evening, he said that he did not always read what he believed in the Daily Express. But I was surprised by some of his remarks yesterday afternoon when he replied to a Question of mine about the increase in postal charges for books and magazines. If prizes were awarded to Ministers for odd statements, I would enter into the contest the remark that he made about it not being the job of the Post Office to subsidise our industries when it came to postal charges for books and magazines. Far from being subsidised, in 18 months our publishers have had to face increases in some charges of 200 per cent., and some increases have amounted to 400 per cent. since 1971.
It was not so very long ago that Sheikh Yamani said that it was not the job of Saudi Arabia to subsidise the industries of the West. This is the kind of subsidy that we are getting from the Post Office. Increases in postal charges of this


kind can be compared only with the increases that we have experienced in the price of oil. No other commodity has gone up in price so much as the postal charges on books and magazines. Once upon a time it was said that trade followed the book overseas. Once upon a time postal rates for books going abroad were cheaper than in other countries. Today the reverse is true. Our overseas postal rates for books and magazines are rocketing ahead of those of our competitors.
Some publishers of magazines and books will be able to defend themselves. I sit on the council of one of the largest consumer magazines the magazine Which? published by the Consumers Association. We shall have to think of new ways of delivering our magazine. Reader's Digest is already implementing its own self-delivery service. We may have to go in with it. A lot of magazine producers will have to look to some kind of self-delivery service, which will reduce the revenue of the Post Office still further. But many magazines will not be able to defend themselves. These crushing increases will mean the end of 100, 100 or perhaps even 500 of the smaller specialist magazines in the course of the next year or so. They will not be able to defend themselves.
I turn now to another section of the community which cannot defend itself—the pensioners. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West pointed out, they are very hard hit by these increases. Many of them cannot move about as freely as can younger members of the community. It is an imposition and a burden for them to go down the street to visit their nephews and nieces. It is infinitely easier for them to make a telephone call or to post a letter. This section of the community will find it increasingly hard to keep in touch with friends and relatives living across the other side of their towns.
For some people, it will be even worse. The telephone is not just a means of easy social communication. It is a real social lifeline which people need to link themselves to the rest of the community. If they cannot afford to use the telephone, they are cut off completely from the community.
Old people are also more dependent on television for their entertainment. The increases in television licence fees have also been a severe burden on many of them.
I suggest to the Government that they should consider the introduction of a postal voucher system for retirement pensioners. I suggest that, once a quarter, every pensioner should be given a £1 postal voucher to be exchanged for stamps, to pay telephone bills or to be used towards the fee for a television licence. We have 8 million retirement pensioners. If every pensioner were given one of these vouchers once a quarter, the total cost would come to only 4 per cent. of the annual wage bill of the Post Office as it is running at the moment.
There are ample precedents. We have had beef vouchers, butter vouchers, and reduced rates for pensioners on public transport during off-peak hours. I ask the Government to look seriously and sympathetically at this proposal. Pensioners need postal services to keep them in touch with the rest of the community. The present proposed swingeing increase in costs will cut their lifeline.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I must first declare my interest as an assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union.
All those who work in Post Office telecommunications must be concerned about the massive financial deficit. They will be particularly concerned, because it overshadows the substantial progress made by the Post Office and its staff over recent years. In the last 10 years, the telecommunications system has more than doubled in size. A good start has been made on modernisation, and the quality of service has improved. This has been made possible by massive increases in productivity. While the size of the system has increased by 104 per cent. the number of staff engaged on the system has increased by only 24 per cent.—a saving in manpower of 78,000 engineering and 12,400 other staff.
As I have said before, had this productivity record been equalled in private industry there would by now have been talk of an economic miracle rather than a crisis. There have been smaller price


increases for telecommunications than for the generality of goods and services. By the end of the year the price index probably will have gone up by over 250 per cent. since 1964. At the present level, telecommunications tariffs will have gone up by 191 per cent. Even if the proposed price increases are taken into account, the tariff increase, comparable with the 250 per cent. for general prices, will still be only 222 per cent. The general level of increases in telecommunications has been lower than that of prices in the private sector.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Golding: I refuse to give way.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have a question.

Mr. Golding: I listened with disgust to the contribution of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and I certainly do not intend to give way to him this evening. Certainly, those who have seen the television advertisements will agree that telecommunications gives real value for money.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not employed by a Post Office union.

Mr. Golding: Why, then, the present Post Office crisis? It stems initially from the fact that for a long time under the last Government Post Office prices were not allowed to rise at the same rate as other prices; and while the Post Office has had to pay more in wages and for equipment, in line with general inflation, it has not been allowed to recover this extra expenditure from its customers. Consequently and naturally, deficits have piled up. This policy, which was pursued so ruthlessly by the last Tory Government, was absolutely disastrous. If prices do not increase again this year the telecommunications side will have to borrow to cover its deficit. This is a burden which it should not have to bear—and neither should taxpayers, many of whom, such as widows, are too badly off to be able to afford telephones, have to subsidise telephone customers.
My view is that that is economic nonsense and a social injustice. There should be special provision for those who need the telephone as a lifeline, particularly the house-bound and disabled. But we should not leave this to local authorities because

the provision is so different from one authority to another; and neither should it be a responsibility of the Post Office Corporation. The responsibility should be taken over fairly and squarely by the Government and particularly by the Department of Health and Social Security.
Although the initial and basic cause of the financial crisis was the policy of Tory Ministers, it has to be acknowledged that there has been an error of judgment this year. My guess is that the error—or rather errors, for there were two—were made against a general optimism supported by the Treasury, that there would be a slackening of inflation. The level of inflation was underestimated and the level of business activity, and, therefore, of demand for Post Office services, was overestimated.
The Government have done well to recognise this and to state bluntly that the last increases should have been greater than they were. We are now correcting the decision, which erred on the side of optimism. It must be said that the financial crisis facing the Post Office has been heightened by the reluctance of the Treasury to meet the pre-1969 pension fund deficit of £55 million for telecommunications and £35 million for posts, although it came ill from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to criticise, because I believe he is the only hon. Member to speak in this debate tonight who was a party to the decision at that time, in that he took part in the debates on the 1969 Act and had subsequently—

Sir George Young: Does not the hon. Member recall voting for the Act which set up the Post Office Corporation, which included specific provisions for the pension fund about which he is complaining?

Mr. Golding: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would do his homework rather better. I entered Parliament in 1969—two weeks after the Act was implemented, so that it would not have been possible for me to vote for that Act. But it is now a matter of very great concern to the Post Office unions that the Treasury should assume the full responsibility for these old Civil Service pensions. We feel very strongly on that. The language of the original


motion is that of an intemperate and irresponsible Opposition. I would never wish to express myself in terms so extravagant but perhaps I may in a more moderate manner echo one of its underlying sentiments.
The Government must pay careful attention to the need to take a fresh look at the future of telecommunications. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, of whose promotion certainly those in Post Office Engineering were delighted to hear —and I was personally particularly delighted to hear of it—will not be surprised to hear me say once again that there is a need for a national telecommunication policy which will lead to the integration of telephony, data transmission and broadcasting. He will know, too, of my view that the private manufacturers, who have so failed the Post Office and its customers, should be taken into public ownership. Most important, however, is the need for the Government not only to stick firmly to their present policy towards prices, enabling a higher level of self-financing of investment, but also to bring about a greater certainty of stability in investment.
Part of the present problem stems from the stupid Barber cuts of December 1973. Unfortunately, the present Government have not yet removed the uncertainty about investment that both management and staff would wish and which is essential for the efficient running of the industry. My hon. Friend must persuade the Treasury to announce the abandonment of "stop-go" policies for nationalised industry investment. It is essential that approval be given as quickly as possible to the 1976–77 investment programme.
I reject the call for an inquiry. The management and staff in telecommunications are highly competent. In parenthesis I should say that the Post Office Union leadership has a great deal of confidence in Sir William Ryland and his board. All in the Post Office must be allowed to get on with their jobs without constant interference from outside. In the past three years there have been 10 Post Office Users' National Council reports on the Post Office. We have had internal Post Office inquiries in addition to the Hardman Inquiry and Prices and Incomes

Board studies. Since the last major inquiry into the Post Office in 1966–67 I have sat on at least three parliamentary inquiries into the Post Office—into its consumer relations, its investment procedures and, at present, its letter service.
What the Post Office needs more than anything else is not another inquiry and another period of uncertainty; it needs to know where it stands on pricing and investment, so that it can get on with the job. It must be given freedom to fix economic prices and stability in planning and executing its investment policy. With these, assured as it is of the support of a loyal and efficient staff, it will surmount its present difficulties.

8.32 p.m.

Sir George Young: Apart from the political rhetoric which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) felt obliged to include in his speech, I agree with most of what he said. In my remarks I hope to cover some of the main points he outlined. I belatedly congratulate him on his timely arrival in this House, which was just late enough to spare him the embarrassment of voting against the Act to which he now takes exception.
I suspect that I should declare an interest. Until February of last year I was an economic adviser to the Post Office Corporation, and had been for the past four and a half years. I am now on leave—unpaid, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will be pleased to know—and I have an option to return to the Post Office should my constituents unwisely transfer their allegiance elsewhere. My remarks about the Post Office will therefore be tinged with humanity, although I am bound to say that its financial affairs seem to have deteriorated since I left. I also have a sizeable stake in that popular investment medium, the Post Office Pension Fund.
Having worked for nearly five years at the Post Office gives me the advantage, denied to my colleagues, of being able to see the problems of that organisation from the inside as well as from the outside. The first thing I must say is that there are simply no easy solutions to the problems confronting the Post Office. Over the weekend a Labour Member called for the resignation of the chairman. If anyone believes that that is a solution


to the problems facing the Post Office he has failed to understand the nature of the problem.
Such a step would create problems that do not exist now, because the chairman is a hard-working and intelligent man who has spent the whole of his working life in the Post Office and who enjoys the confidence and support of the staff at all levels. To seek to use him as a scapegoat for the problems would aggravate staff relations and would not get anyone anywhere. In all the correspondence that I have had with the Post Office I have received prompt and courteous replies and have not undergone the experiences mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West.
Nor is there any advantage in criticising the staff of the Post Office at a lower level. My experience was that the engineers and the postmen had a loyalty to their employer which is not found in many institutions these days. I found that they had a genuine pride in discharging their duties cheerfully and efficiently. Some hon. Members believe that there are political solutions which could help the Post Office. Labour Members have from time to time advocated that one of the manufacturers of switching equipment should be nationalised or bought by the Post Office because they believe it would help the Post Office if it owned such a supplier.
That suggestion is basically irrelevant. The current position is that the Post Office defines in fairly broad terms the specification of the equipment it wishes to buy and gets the benefit of the technology and expertise of a range of manufacturers. It also gets the benefit of competitive tendering. If it were to supply and manufacture its own equipment it would forgo both of those advantages. Further, it would be a consequence of its buying up a supplier that it would have that much less money of its own to invest. An immediate consequence of the Post Office "nationalising" a supplier of switching equipment would be a fall in its investment programme. Under Section 13 of the Act the Post Office has the powers to manufacture equipment, but has never chosen so to do, presumably because it believes that the

balance of advantage lies with the existing system.
Some Opposition Members, particularly the spokesman for the Liberal Party, believe that the Post Office monopoly is at the root of the problem and that there is some advantage in doing away with it. There is not much joy in pursuing that solution. It is quite true that if, for example, we offered to a London entrepreneur the letter collection and delivery service within London, he would be able to undercut the Post Office because the cost of collecting, sorting and delivering a letter in London is less than 5½p.
Of course, any Government would insist that a national delivery service be retained. However, the corollary of hiving-off to private enterprise the profitable section of the postal system would be that the Post Office would be left with all the unprofitable sections.
An immediate consequence of breaking the Post Office monopoly would be to increase the subsidy paid by the taxpayer to the Post Office, which is exactly the opposite solution to that which we all wish to see.
A further consequence would be a complication for the public who would have to decide which of the two systems it wished to use for its letters. There would probably have to be two sources or supplies of stamps, perhaps two sets of letter boxes and there might have to be two postmen walking the same street.
The answer lies not in breaking the monopoly but in using the resources within the monopoly more efficiently and ensuring that the Post Office has a sensible and adequate financial framework within which to operate.
Having issued that vigorous defence of various Aunt Sallies, I am bound to say that everything is not well with the Post Office. One can find the reason for the trouble in a White Paper, dealing with the Nationalised Industries, published by the Government in November 1967 called "A Review of Economic and Financial Objectives". I am referring to Cmnd. 3437. In paragraph 33 it says,
Clear financial objectives will continue to be necessary so that the industries know what is expected of them by the Government…The alternative would be an indefensible lack of control over the return achieved on a very substantial public investment.


That is the alternative that has happened. Both parties share the guilt of allowing that situation to arise.
The investment programme of the Post Office, which, I believe, is some £4 billion spread over five years, has continually been used by the Treasury as a tool for economic management. The Post Office has been asked at the beginning of a financial year to cut back its investment programme and half way through that very same financial year it has been asked by the Treasury to expand. Of course, the investment programme of the Post Office spans some 20 years which is the lead time in telecommunications.
We cannot fool around with an investment programme such as that with the short-term measures that the Treasury has insisted upon. If we treat an investment programme in that way, we shall pay very severe penalties indeed, because the suppliers of the equipment that the Post Office is buying know that the Post Office may be forcd to axe its commitment, and as a result they will build into the price they quote a premium for the uncertainty that surrounds the whole investment programme. Neither the Post Office nor the industry know how much they will spend even next year on telecommunications equipment. This is not the right climate in which the country's largest investor should operate its investment programme. There must be a greater air of certainty surrounding the decisions which it makes.
It is not only the investment programme but tariffs which have been continually interfered with. Tariffs have been kept artificially low by price control, and again the Post Office is paying a very heavy price for that. It has made losses for the past two years, which means that the country is getting a negative return on one of its biggest investments. That has made that much more difficult the inevitable catching-up exercise that we are now going through. Keeping tariffs at an artificially low level stimulates demand which makes it that much more difficult for those inside the Post Office to forecast future demand and to reach a sensible investment policy. The losses have demoralised management. They have reduced the incentive to cut waste and led to the inefficient use of resources.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West pointed out that the losses incurred by the Post Office are not socially justifiable because the main consumers of its services are businesses and better-off individuals who use the telephone system. Therefore, there is no social justification whatsoever for subsidising the Post Office.
The point that I wish to make from those two illustrations is that Parliament or Governments have created some of the Post Office's problems and that it is no good looking within the Post Office to identify the cause of the problems.
Not only have Governments committed various sins, but there have been sins of omission. The board of the Post Office does not know the social and economic framework within which it has to manage its affairs.
In the 1960s there was a series of Command Papers and Select Committee investigations and a report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Those reports identified relevant and attainable targets at which the Post Office could aim. Throughout the 1960s the Post Office met its targets and, although there was public criticism—there always will be—that criticism never reached the volume that it is now experiencing.
It was in the early 1970s, when financial disciplines were relaxed, that the problems began. The Minister, in winding up the debate, may refer to the target in the Government's amendment—namely, to break even. But before he does, he should re-read the Labour Government's White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, which criticised this kind of target, because it
prescribes only a minimum standard of financial performance.
The Government must refine and clarify the financial objective of the Post Office, not leave it as a vague obligation to break even.
In addition to asking what the Post Office can do for Parliament, we should also ask what Parliament can do for the Post Office. The clear answer is that the Post Office should be given definite objectives. One of the results of the public inquiry for which my hon. Friends are calling would be the setting of realistic targets for the Post Office.
It is high time that the problems of the Post Office and the options available to it


were exposed to public gaze. One of the hangovers from the Civil Service days of the Post Office is that everything is shrouded in secrecy—that anything that is official is therefore secret.
The public have no chance whatsoever in the few weeks which elapse between the announcement of increases and their implementation of making any constructive suggestions. Nor has the Post Office Users' National Council. Within the existing framework there is no question but to let the Post Office have the increases that it wants, although Parliament usually manages to insist on cosmetic alterations from time to time. We need to take a leisurely look at the framework of the Post Office without a pistol being pointed at our heads relating to specific increases in the pipeline.
It is no secret that, not so long ago the Post Office prepared a document setting out the options confronting the postal service. If it was a secret, it no longer is. The paper set out the implications for the postal service in a clear way. If one insisted that the postal service should break even, it set out the consequences in terms of quality of service. Alternatively, if one said that a certain quality of service was needed, it set out the financial implications. It also set out a range of radical proposals relevant to the solution of the Post Office's problems on which I believe the public are entitled to comment. I suspect that that report is gathering dust in some pigeon hole in Whitehall and that it has never seen the light of day.
A Green Paper on the postal service or a public inquiry, such as is called for by my hon. Friends, would be of enormous interest. It would educate not only the public about the problems of the Post Office but the Post Office about the public's expectations of the service.
Another decision which is shrouded in secrecy concerns the future switching equipment—known anonymously as System X—to be bought by the Post Office. That decision is being taken within the Post Office, but a large number of engineers in this country who do not work for the Post Office could contribute to the important decisions which are about to be taken. The Post Office has no monopoly of wisdom in this matter, having made a particularly serious error of judgment in the 1950s when it decided to

move far too quickly from mechanical to electronic equipment.
I welcome the call made by my hon. Friends for a public inquiry as that is an essential prelude to giving the Post Office relevant commercial obligations.
The search for economies is urgent. If worthwhile economies are to be made, radical and unpopular decisions must be taken. Perhaps we must take a second look at the manning levels of the postal services. For example, the bulk of the work on the postal service is done between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. and between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. In both cases full-time postmen do the work. The work of the postmen is amplified to bring up their hours to full-time levels. In practice the work could be done by two sets of part-timers, each working four hours. That step would pose enormous problems for the Post Office and for the morale of those working in the postal service. I do not say that we should necessarily move in that direction. There are no easy solutions. However, we must take radical steps if we wish to obtain worthwhile economies in the system and if the deterioration in the financial position is to be arrested.
While there is a case for the Post Office to have a monopoly of the telephone network, I do not see why it should have a monopoly of the telephone instruments. The public would welcome a choice of instruments and the chance to obtain different kinds of equipment of different specifications from various suppliers. The Post Office could reserve the right to make sure that the equipment was up to the standards required by the network. That would relieve the Post Office of the need to tie up capital in telephone instruments. In other countries a much wider range of instruments is available. A public inquiry could usefully look at that issue.
The liabilities of the Post Office pension fund are not those of the Post Office Corporation. Those liabilities were incurred by the Civil Service before the Post Office was established, and relate to the pensions of those employed by the Civil Service. When the Post Office Corporation was set up, the Government Actuary worked out the liability and the Government credited the new pension fund with the amount of money in question, which was invested notionally in 21 per cent. Consols—a well-known hedge


against inflation. The Corporation was lumbered with this notional stock, which it could not have sold even if it had wanted to do so. It found itself in the indefensible position of a pension fund having all its assets in one fixed-interest stock which it could not sell.
The Labour Party was responsible for this arrangement, which was included in the 1969 Act. The consequences of that decision have dogged all Post Office debates ever since. It will not be satisfactory if every debate on the Post Office —up to the time when the last civil servant concerned dies in the year 2000 and odd—is to be dogged by the question of who is responsible for the pension fund. The Government must sort out this question. I imagine that there is an element of flexibility in the Post Office. I am sure that it is prepared to discuss a settlement. We must remove this consideration from Post Office debates, as it has an artificial effect on the tariff.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King) asked a question about the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation"—although I believe that it is more of an interference with inflation than an attack on it. That document refers to a £6 limit. The Post Office workers recently concluded a settlement under which they will be entitled to a 1 per cent. increase in wages for every 1 per cent. increase after an 11 per cent. increase in the retail price index. If inflation is not abated within a year the postal workers' may be owed money by the Post Office if the agreed increases take their wages over the £6 limit. Will the Minister say what the Government policy will be if that situation arises? Will he acknowledge that the postal workers agreed to go without a higher increase in pay in return for this arrangement, which links their future pay to the cost of living index? The postal workers would have settled for a much higher figure if the thresholds had been excluded from the agreement.
I think that I can end by quoting paragraph 8 of the previous Labour Gov. ernment's White Paper:
Increases in costs should wherever possible be absorbed by greater efficiency rather than being passed on to the consumer, and price increases should be capable of being publicly justified".

Those were their own remarks the last time they were in office when dealing with the nationalised industries.
It is in that spirit that I support the motion and condemn the inadequate and complacent amendment that the Government have moved.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I rather feared that the debate would be what was described earlier as a "yahboo" debate. However, I must congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) on bringing it up to a very serious level—a level which will be helpful to the House and the Post Office. I say that not because the hon. Gentleman is an ex-colleague of mine—I must declare the same vested interest as he has, as a former Post Officer employee, and as a parliamentary adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association, which has members in the Post Office.
I think it is wrong that this House, politicians generally and members of the public should use an enormous corporation, so vital to this country—a corporation with a record of tremendous service over years and years—as a political football. I shall not repeat many of the very good points that have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton. I want to emphasise three areas of general interest that need to be put clearly in the debate at a very serious level.
The Minister began very well by pointing out that he does not run the Post Office. That is one of the most important things that hon. Members must take on board. I fully appreciate, as a new Member, that people in this House who had been used to getting the Postmaster-General to the Box for detailed questioning and getting detailed answer to letters on all sorts of operational matters of the Post Office, take hard the getting used to the fact that the Minister is now responsible at arm's length for the Post Office. However, it has clearly been shown in one report after another that there is no other way to run a corporation of this size—indeed, no other way to run any of the public corporations—but to allow it, within certain guidelines, to get on with the job and not have the Minister dabbling


in every little detail of the operational matters of the corporation.
In the House we have not only the Minister, with responsibility, as has been pointed out. We have a Select Committee, of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, which is at present investigating a certain aspect of Post Office affairs and which has investigated other aspects of Post Office affairs in the past. We have the Price Comission, to which the Post Office must submit its applications for price increases. We have the House itself taking an interest in Post Office affairs. We have the Post Office Users' National Council, and the other national councils to which matters are referred and to which the public can go with their criticisms and suggestions. In the past we have had interdepartmental committees looking into various aspects of Post Office affairs. We have had indepent inquiries.
We really must allow businesses to get on with the job they have been established to do. We must not plant seeds and then dig them up every five minutes to see whether they are growing, because we shall kill them. I fear that that is what has happened with the Post Office, certainly over the last five or six years, and possibly longer than that.
The Post Office staff, from top to bottom, have become demoralised and disheartened. They have no clear sense of direction, because all the time their investment programmes, pricing policies, pay policies and the whole of their organisation are being interfered with, inspected and pulled out in public view by the House and its Select Committees, interdepartmental inquiries and the whole range of other bodies I have mentioned. This goes too far, at times, and this fact needs to be stated clearly in the House.
The Post Office must be given the chance to run its business as a commercial enterprise, and it cannot do that if it is being hauled over the coals every five minutes to account for everything it does.
We have heard too much criticism in the debate and too many comparisons with the Post Office's services in the past. The Post Office has a staff of 420,000. It is the largest employer in this country. One could hardly get on a bus anywhere in this country without finding a member of the Post Office staff on board. The

Post Office provides 24,000 sub-post offices from Land's End to John o'Groats and it processes 11 billion letters a year. Scarcely any family in the land does not use at least one of its services every week. It may be the collection of a pension, the purchase of postage stamps, the sending of a telegram, the making of a phone call, or any other of a whole range of services.
It is understandable that with 11 billion letters being processed every year, mistakes will be made from time to time, but hon. Members like my hon. Friend for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) should remember that many letters do get to their destination on time, many telephone calls are made efficiently and cheaply, and many other services are provided day in and day out, for 365 days a year, quite successfully and efficiently to the satisfaction of everybody. Of course, people do not come to our surgeries or write to us about services that are provided efficiently and well.
I post letters to my constituency every day and, since I came to this House in February last year, I have not had a single complaint about any letter I have sent. I posted some letters tonight at 7 p.m. and I can almost guarantee that they will be in my constituency on Teesside first thing in the morning. This is a marvellous service, and I have never had cause to complain about it. We must keep the criticisms in perspective. It is unfair to demoralise the staff, from top to bottom, because of mistakes that are made. Mistakes are inevitable in an organisation of this size and too many people never give praise for the marvellous work the Post Office is doing.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I did not attack Post Office workers; I attacked the regular cases in which the Post Office cannot deliver a letter from Stratford to the House of Commons within a couple of days. If my constituents cannot get their letters of complaint here and think I am holding them up, I am not going to take the blame. I tell them it is the fault of the Post Office. If Sir William Ryland cannot put it right, I am entitled to complain.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: One way in which Sir William Ryland could put it right is to get more staff in the London area, but that is very difficult, as the Post Office


has discovered to its cost. When my hon. Friend compares the situation today with the situation which existed many years ago, he forgets the changes in society that have affected all our lives in that time. In this day and age it is virtually impossible to get staff who will, on a postal worker's pay, go to work at four or five o'clock in the morning in central London, where there is less and less housing available. It is more and more difficult to get staff to perform work that formerly they were willing to do for a much lower rate of pay. This is one of the causes of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton was in favour of a public inquiry. He said that the Post Office had dealt secretly with some of the issues he had mentioned and that there should be more public debate. I challenge him on that. One has only to read through the evidence that has been provided by the public on previous surveys and through the reports of the Post Office Users' National Council, where a detailed inquiry has been carried out into the different options open to the Post Office, such as cutting services and using marketing services to bring more business in, to see that quite enough information has been gained for well-informed public debate, and certainly for an adequate debate in this Chamber.
I do not think that yet another inquiry into the Post Office would serve any good to anyone. That does not mean that I disagree with the hon. Member about the need for clear guidelines and secure targets. I agree with him very much about that. That is one of the vital matters to which the Government must pay attention. The Post Office must have clearly-laid-down, positively-agreed targets on the basis of corporate plans and strategies which have been settled with the Post Office, and those agreed targets must be maintained. The Government must stop using the Post Office as an instrument of economic policy on pay, prices and everything else in the short term; they must give it a long-term aim, so that it knows exactly where it is going and can plan ahead in the way it has been unable to do hitherto—a situation which has lead to this debate.
The Government must, as they are vigorously trying to do, contain inflation. The effect of inflation on a business of this size is staggering. Its effect on pay, prices and supplies for an organisation with this many staff and with this size of business is tremendous. The Post Office, in co-operation with the unions—I am sure that in the present difficult conditions the unions would be only too pleased to comply—must achieve greater productivity. This probably applies to the postal service more than anything else. There have been enormous increases in productivity on the telecommunications and Giro services, but great advances are yet to be made on an increase in productivity on the postal service.
It may be that the Post Office, with the Government, will in the near future have to take some hard decisions about the future quality of services. We should not delude ourselves that there are any easy solutions. A public inquiry would not be an easy solution. Recommendations would have to be made and acted upon. When we study the situation we find that it is necessary either to put up the price or to cut the services. Obviously the public will never be in favour of doing either of those things. The Government and the Post Office will have to take some hard decisions, and in doing so I think they deserve our support in the House.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I followed with great interest the speeches made by the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young). It is clear that both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have a deep knowledge of Post Office affairs. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Thornaby that we, as politicians, should not try to interfere too often with the nationalised industries and that we should not be continually pulling up young plants to look at the roots to see how they are getting on. I made much the same point myself in a debate on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill, in which I said, in effect, that the least interference with the nationalised industries by politicians the better.
But I think that the hon. Member for Thornaby must take on board the fact


that we are here considering a special case. The Post Office has recently received a subsidy of £300 million. A few weeks ago the deficit forecast for the current year was approximately £70 million, but now we are told that it is likely to be £300 million. The charge for first class mail will be increased from 3½p a mere 13 months ago—what a long time ago that now seems—to 82p in the near future. That is an increase of 150 per cent. It is the general feeling of outrage against the extent of the rise in charges which necessitates this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton declared an interest, in that he worked for five years in the Post Office. I worked for approximately the same number of weeks in the Post Office, many years ago, as a temporary Christmas postman. I do not know whether that qualifies me to declare an interest, but knowing how prickly the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is on this subject I must make haste to declare that interest.
During the time that I was working in the Post Office I was greatly impressed by the cheerfulness and good humour of the postmen who arrived at work at 5 or 5.15 in the morning. At that hour I was usually in a filthy temper. I was also impressed by the kindness that they showed on their rounds. For example, one old lady complained that neither her three grandchildren nor she were likely to receive any Christmas cards. In a remarkably short time all the Christmas cards that were for one reason or another non-deliverable were smartly readdressed and shoved through her letter box. I do not suppose that she has ever had such a bumper Christmas.
I am sure that every hon. Member has experienced through the years great demonstrations of kindness and helpfulness by members of the Post Office, on whom we are dependent. I make it clear that my complaint is not against the postmen themselves—of course, in such a large organisation there are inevitably some laggards—but against the system.
We can judge an industrialised country today by the efficiency of its mailing and telecommunications services. I am afraid that by such yardsticks we are rapidly

falling behind other Western industrialised nations.
Yesterday morning I received a letter from the local branch of the National Union of Railwaymen in my constituency. It was sent to me first class so as to get to me in good time for the debate. I have the permission of the local branch of the NUR to quote the letter. It reads:
My members and I, wish to make a very strong protest against the very high increase in charges as proposed by Mr. Ryland Post Office chairman. If those proposed are allowed to go through they will put a very heavy financial burden on everybody. It appears so chronic that when the Post Office was run by Whitehall it was the cheapest, and most efficient service in the world. Since it has been run by a board it has gradually deteriorated. We would suggest that an inquiry should be set up to look at the running of the industry, because as a monopoly it should not show such tremendous losses. Second-class post should be done away with. We never used to have it. Everyone believes it is ridiculous to hold mail 'back'. We suggest one class to be delivered anywhere in Great Britain the next day, as we did in the said 'horse and cart' era. We hope that you will be able to do something in this serious matter.
Hon. Members may think it surprising to find the work force of one nationalised industry writing in this vein about another nationalised industry. That letter was of course unsolicited, but the fact that the NUR wrote in that way demonstrates how many people are angry at the extraordinary rise in Post Office charges, and at the bland assumption that all that Post Office management needs to do is to put up charges and the organisation will be back in the black. Surely a further rise in charges will mean that the Post Office will do even less business. Therefore, an increase in prices is not the answer. The Post Office must seek means to cut costs and to reduce expenses. If the present Chairman of the Post Office does not go down in history for any other reason, he will certainly go down as an experiment of Ryland's Law of diminishing returns. That law may be briefly stated as follows:
If one subsidises prices, one rapidly reaches the position where it is impossible to put them back up to an economic level. The rise needed is too great for the customer to accept.
It is clear that at present the Post Office is suffering inexorably from that law of diminishing returns. People are now


carrying out their own local deliveries of cheques, bills, and so forth. I know a charity close to my constituency where supporters are recruited to deliver letters three or four times a year. About 30 per cent, of all deliveries go by hand. This year that organisation will attempt to make two-thirds of its deliveries by hand because it feels that it cannot afford the postal costs involved.
It is right in this debate to search for some tentative solutions. I agree that there are no easy solutions to the problem, but we should search for some answers. I found the speech of the Minister of State somewhat disappointing in that respect. He did an admirable job of stonewalling, but he hit nothing to the boundary in the form of solutions. I wish to put forward, with a good deal of humility, one or two thoughts on the subject.
The service which we receive in this country is archaic in the sense that it is so very good in the way in which the postman delivers mail, parcels and other literature right up to one's doorstep. I am sure that most hon. Members have had experience of delivering election literature, and they will appreciate the time-consuming difficulties experienced by postmen. We know what it means having to negotiate long garden paths, or having to climb to the top floor of blocks of flats, or of having to cope with letter boxes which appear to have been invented for dwarfs with double-jointed fingers. Unfortunately, this is one luxury that we must now try to do without.
Has not the time come when we have to move to a system of garden-gate boxes, stationed along the pavement, and with suites of individual mail boxes next door to each other on the ground floor of blocks of flats, as is done in the United States and Canada? If such a system were adopted in this country, it would substantially reduce the time spent on delivery services, and this would lead to a reduction in the manpower needed in the Post Office. We must also consider the suggestion of doing away with separate first and second class mails and of returning to a single mail system. The only justification for having two mail deliveries is to have one ultra fast system and one normal system, but at the present time we have one normal system and one

slow system. The result is that everyone, whenever he possibly can, makes use of the slow service in order to save money, and when he wishes something to be known and passed on with speed he makes a telephone call. This clearly is leading to a substantial downturn in the overall volume of mail. There was a reduction of 26·6 per cent. as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said in first-class mail between the last quarter and the comparable quarter in the past year. That is a staggering reduction.
I suggest that the answer is to revert to one-class mail and to pitch the price of that at a level at which it is competitive with the average cost of a standard telephone call made during working hours. In this way mail could be attracted back to the Post Office again.
However, the most important point made in the letter from the NUR was the suggestion that an inquiry should be set up to examine the running of the industry because as a monopoly it should not show such a tremendous loss. Many hon. Members have different ideas about what a nationalised industry that is a monopoly should do. There are those—and I am one—who think that overall a nationalised industry should strive for a profit out of which it can fund its future capital investment. Others, particularly Labour Members, believe that monopolies in the nationalised industries should run at a loss because of the industries' social service objective. Then there was the Morrisonian principle, namely, the compromise of trying to break even taking one year with another. It is in this that the whole problem of the nationalised industries is encapsulated. They have always suffered from a confusion of social and commercial objectives, and this is a good argument against any further nationalisation.
However, the essential point in relation to the Post Office must be to discover where the monopoly can be broken and where forces of competition can be allowed to enter. I strongly support the suggestion for an inquiry, in which postal users will have a voice, to discuss how the services can be run more efficiently, whether the Post Office is not now too big and too centralised and should be split into two separate, independent divisions—one for telecommunications and


the other for mail services—and to examine ways in which private companies can be introduced to compete with the Post Office and thus sharpen the Post Office's commercial edge.
Without such an objective look, as sure as night follows day the Post Office's finances will go from bad to worse and in no time we shall be faced with either a 10p first-class mail stamp or a 15p first-class mail stamp. That stamp from the very first will be a collector's item because no one will be able to afford to use it. The Post Office has to come to its senses, and an independent inquiry is the first step in that process.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: It is surely to be expected that any debate in this Chamber on the Post Office will be riddled with highly subjective tales about the inefficiency of the Post Office. None of us has been disappointed tonight because there have been many such tales.
However, we have had an extremely thoughtful and well-informed debate with particularly interesting contributions from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth). It has also been a controversial debate and has highlighted the problems that confront the Post Office at present.
It would be quite wrong if we were to mislead the public into thinking tat these are new problems. They are problems that the Post Office has faced for a considerable period and they have been intensified by inflation and other factors.
The Minister highlighted the central problem facing the Post Office and other public sector industries, which is how they and we reconcile the need for them to act commercially and at the same time recognise their community importance and their social service function. That is the nub of the problem facing the Post Office and other public sector industries, and it is one which we cannot dodge. We must attempt to devise policies which reconcile those two demands which are imposed on the public sector.
We need to put the problems of the Post Office in perspective. As Members of Parliament, we all rely heavily on the Post Office in our day-to-day work and recognise its general efficiency. I pay

personal tribute to the service which the Post Office provides for hon. Members. In recognising that general efficiency, we must make it clear that the Post Office is not perfect. How many of us are perfect? How many of us operate at 100 per cent. efficiency every day of the week?
My hon. Friend the member for Thornaby spelt out the scale of operations of the Post Office. He told us how many thousands of individuals worked for it and the extraordinary range of services and individual transactions which it carried out on a day-to-day basis. If the Post Office worked at 99 per cent. efficiency an enormous number of individual errors and complaints would still come to us in our constituency work.
Therefore, we must put the efficiency of the Post Office in perspective. Of course there are serious things wrong with the operations of the Post Office, but we would be wrong to criticise the Post Office in completely black terms. The Post Office is tackling its problems and, although it may not be doing so quickly enough or in a way we endorse, that is another matter from condemning the Post Office as a completely inefficient organisation.
In recognising the problems of the industry we must take fully into account the genuine hardship which is imposed upon many people whom we represent by the substantial price increases. It would be wrong for us to ignore those problems in putting the general problems of the Post Office into perspective.
I should like to comment in more detail on the operation of sub-post offices. Those of us who represent rural constituencies will appreciate the tremendous importance of sub-post offices, of which there are more than 20,000 throughout the United Kingdom. In my constituency I have been concerned at the threatened closure of two sub-post offices. One threatened closure has not come about because the sub-postmistress has decided to withdraw her resignation and to continue to run the office. That is somewhat surprising, because she enjoys the lavish income of under £12 a week for operating the sub-post office and performing a valuable service for the community. The other sub-post office seems destined to be closed very shortly.
I enjoy a good relationship with the post office in my area and I have been in correspondence with the head postmaster on this matter. He has written to me as follows:
The conclusions reached after this consideration is that the Bridge End Post Office is not economical and the people who transact business there have regularly to go into towns where adequate postal facilities are already existing, so the inconvenience caused will be minimal. Taking into account all the circumstances the office is no longer warranted. I know the disappointment that this decision will mean to you and all other people affected, we would all like postal facilities near to our residences or places of business but unfortunately the Post Office cannot afford to be so generous.
I would not expect it to be that generous, but I would remind the Post Office that this particular sub-post office caters for the needs of more than 100 pensioners and a number of industrial concerns in that locality. To close that office would mean that a number of these people, in a district not blessed with good transport, would have a very steep, hilly area to climb in order to reach the post office in the town centre.
This story could be duplicated in many other areas in the country, and I ask the Minister to resassure me and my constituents, and other hon. Members who rely on sub-post offices in their area, to say that, whatever the problems of the Post Office, they will not be dealt with by some Beeching-type axeing operation of sub-post offices and other facilities which are important to constituents living in rural areas. I believe that that would be a fundamental error. Not only do the sub-post offices provide an important service. They are more than just post offices. They are manned by men and women who have a very close and intimate knowledge of the problems and circumstances of the people using their offices. They act as advice centres and as very important links with the outside world and with relatives and friends who can act in these times of stress and difficulty.
Therefore I urge the Minister, whatever the Post Office may be planning to do, to make a very strong appeal that these sub-post offices shall not be axed in the way that I fear may be likely in view of the Post Office's desire to act commercially. I think this would be a quite disastrous policy.
Until recently, when I was given the sub-postmaster's handbook, which spells out the very Victorian terms of employment under which these people are condemned to work—one could hardly imagine that they enjoy the work—I did not know much about the conditions of sub-postmasters. Their conditions have to be looked at, and their incomes. They have suffered recently by a reduction in their income through the withdrawal of national savings stamps, and also by the fact that football pool companies are employing private agents, so that the number of postal orders purchased has been reduced considerably. There needs to be some interim relief for sub-postmasters to compensate them for the loss in their incomes which has come about as a consequence of this.
I also believe that the Post Office must look to the matter of pensions for these people, for at the present moment there are no pensions whatsoever. They receive retirement gratuities which are given only after five years' service to people who have put in 18 hours' personal service a week. After 29 years and seven months this gratuity amounts to just over £1,000. Frankly, I do not think this is good enough. There is no security of tenure for these individuals after a period of service. This is quite wrong in a period when security of tenure has been given to many other people. There is no compensation for loss of appointment. Also, I believe that they are treated very shabbily when it comes to providing substitutes during the holiday period.
I again urge the Minister to say something on this in winding up the debate, because I believe that it is not only important to constituents who live in rural areas but a matter of deep concern to sub-postmasters themselves.
I conclude by asking the Minister to make a very clear statement tonight. If he is not in a position to answer in detail, I hope he will ensure that the Post Office gives urgent reassurance to sub-postmasters and to individuals living in these areas that the services will remain in being.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): I agree that this has been a debate which has seen many constructive contributions from back benchers


on both sides of the House. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), and Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), and the hon. Members for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth), and for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) have contributed in a most thoughtful and constructive way to our debate. I thought that the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton was especially valuable, and his first-hand, long experience of the Post Office has been of benefit to both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) rightly drew attention to the considerable plight of the publishers of magazines and books, facing, as they are, recurrent increases in postal charges, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the plight of pensioners who are probably the hardest hit amongst the whole community by increased postal charges. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham referred to their predicament, as did the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) before he left the Chamber apparently disgusted by the contributions of his hon. Friends.
I refer briefly to the speech by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I give him the assurance that he sought that the Conservative Party would see it as one of the principal benefits of the independent inquiry that we have in mind that it would be able to make his recommendations enabling a greater degree of experimentation and pilot study work to take place in various parts of the country. What is more, we see no reason why an independent inquiry should not reappraise the statutory monopoly position of the Post Office. Similar questions are at the moment being asked by a Select Committee of this House.
However, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton said. If the statutory monopoly is to be breached in any way, a condition of that must be that the new competitors of the Post Office should be able to compete on a fair and all-fours basis with the Post Office.
I turn to the opening speech by the Minister of State. I can appreciate that he found himself in considerable difficulty. It must be embarrassing if not

awkward to have to come to this House to say that the deficit of the nationalised industry for which he has responsibility has rocketed from £50 million to £300 million in just six months. However, I found it strange that at no point did the hon. Gentleman feel it appropriate to express any regret or apology for what had happened, and I endorse fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said about there being a real sense of anger and outrage to see the Post Office coming back for a new increase in prices and with a sixfold increase in its forecast deficit only six months after making its original forecast. It appeared from the Minister's speech that he was oblivious of that. His view seemed to be that the Post Office had got its sums wrong and that this was a regrettable internal difficulty in the Post Office. But we are talking about what is by any stretch of the imagination a colossal sum. We see an increased deficit of a quarter of a billion pounds. Surely some expression of regret is due from the Minister to the users and the taxpayers who will have to foot this considerable bill.
The Minister's attitude to what by any standards is a financial debacle seemed to be to take refuge in the statement:
I do not run the Post Office.'
However, I do not believe that it is reasonable or proper for a Minister to shuffle off responsibility for what has happened. The Government accepted what subsequently appeared to be the very inadequate inflation assumption which the Post Office used when it forecast in January of this year that the deficit for 1975–76 would be only £50 million. The Government failed to exercise any degree of influence and constraint over the Post Office pay settlement in April which was a major factor responsible for knocking the finances of the Post Office sideways.
If the Minister claims that he has no legal power to intervene, I refer him to Section 11 of the previous Labour Government's Post Office Act of 1969. In subsection (2), clear powers are given to Ministers to make directives to the Post Office
If it appears to the Minister that there is a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers…


Clearly there have been major defects here, and it was open to Ministers to intervene and to give directives if they chose. They failed to do so, and that means that there is certainly a major degree of responsibility for the £300 million deficit with which we are being faced on Ministers as well as on Post Office management.
The Minister, in his opening remarks, and the Government in their amendment, have sought to suggest that the responsibility for the present financial position of the Post Office lies with the previous Conservative Government and the statutory price restraint policy of that Government. While I would acknowledge that a statutory price restraint policy was pursued—it would be difficult to say otherwise—I would make clear the financial perspective. The total amount of the Post Office's deficit, as achieved and as is forecast, covering the first two financial years of the present Government, comes to £620 million, and that is nearly five times greater than the total amount paid to the Post Office for price restraint compensation during the period of the last Conservative Government. If, therefore, the Minister hopes to attribute a measure of blame and responsibility to the last Conservative Government, all I would say is that the present Government's degree of responsibility is already nearly five times greater.
I turn to the very important point raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, regarding the Post Office pension fund. This is a very disturbing position. We believe that the actuarial deficit of the Post Office pension fund must be in excess of £800 million. It is notable that of the £290 million deficit now being forecast by the Post Office for 1975–76, £90 million is attributable to the deficit on that fund.
I agree with hon. Members on both sides that it is not now particularly productive to try to suggest where the blame for that lies. Certainly the previous Conservative Government found themselves in difficulty over this, as have the present Labour Government. But I must set the record straight in view of the comments of the Minister of State at the Treasury during the Second Reading of the Statu-

tory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill—because during that debate the Minister seemed to be under the impression that it was the previous Conservative Government who were responsible for this deficit on the Post Office pension fund.
As has been admirably drawn out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, the deficit is principally attributable to pre-1969 liabilities of those who were working in the Post Office service. Their liabilities were discharged and funded in the Labour Government's Post Office Act of 1969. They were funded solely and wholely in 2½ per cent. Consols, which have clearly in no way matched the level of inflation which has subsequently taken place. But this 2½ per cent. Consols funding arrangement was made during the last Labour Government. That is down in black and white in Section 47 of the Post Office Act, 1969. I am afraid that the root source of all this is in that piece of legislation.
I turn to the important question to be dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary in winding up the debate. Clearly there is a fundamental choice to be made. Is it right that this enormous deficit on the fund should continue to be discharged by making massive drawings on the revenue account of the Post Office, thereby charging it to the Post Office users and consumers, or should it be met by the general body of taxpayers? That is an important question. I believe that both sides would agree that it is quite wrong for there not to be made in the Post Office accounts a clear distinction between the operational losses of the Post Office and, on the other hand, the quite extraordinary provision being made against the Post Office revenue account for the pension fund.
I turn to what we would regard as being the major cause of the deficit which has arisen. It has been said by the Minister of State that it is due to inflation, which would appear to be a thoroughly nebulous explanation, and that nobody in particular is responsible.
The basic reason for this deficit is undoubtedly the fact that the Post Office failed in the first place accurately to calculate the loss of revenue which it would suffer as a result of the last round of price increases. In addition to that, and


very much more seriously, there has been the settlement made to the Post Office workers in the spring of this year. That represented an average increase to postal workers of 24·2 per cent. to which was coupled a cost-of-living payment totalling 1 per cent. for every 1 per cent. increase in the retail price index above 11 per cent.
What has happened is that the horrifying rate of inflation and the acceleration in that rate has dragged up the Post Office deficit with it to its present astronomic heights. The point we make about the settlement and the way it has affected the Post Office's finances is that this seems to be an extraordinary situation whereby the Post Office entered into a pay settlement solely on its own authority knowing that it had not, under any circumstances, the revenue to pay for that settlement. This is a clear case of a nationalised industry going deeper into deficit without any degree of direct control and involvement by a Minister even though internal funds were not there to meet the settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgewater has developed forcibly our case for setting up an independent inquiry into Post Office affairs. It is notable that while this has not had the support of the Government Front Bench, it has received support elsewhere. It was supported by the hon. Member for Colne Valley on behalf of the Liberal Party, and Mr. Tom Jackson said on the radio this morning that he was in no way averse to a public inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex has said that his local branch of the NUR has also said that an independent inquiry would be justified.
We say that there is a widespread feeling that the Post Office is not the best judge as to how it should proceed. This is a most important nationalised industry currently consuming an enormous amount of the nation's resources. It is a nationalised industry on which every family and firm is to a greater or lesser extent dependent. We believe that there is a profoundly strong case for establishing an independent inquiry to look at the long-term future of the Post Office and the options open to it.
There has inevitably been a measure of criticism directed against the Post Office by a number of hon. Members. It must be said that the breakdown of

financial control in the Post Office has to a large extent been a reflection and a product of the calamitous national economic policy pursued by the Government. The crippling impact on the Post Offices's finances of this year's pay settlement for Post Office workers is in turn a direct reflection of the crippling impact on the economy as a whole of the disastrous delusion of the social contract.
We have seen a six-fold increase in the Post Office's deficit in six months. That, too, is a direct reflection of the way in which public sector expenditure as a whole has increased and is still increasing when it ought to be diminishing. We have seen, too, the way in which the Government have failed to ensure that there is any proper financial discipline in this segment of the public sector. This is a reflection of the general relaxation and abandonment of financial discipline over the whole public sector.
The sad and painful message that comes from this debate is that just as every taxpayer and consumer will have to shoulder the horrifying increase in the Post Office's deficit this year, so, too, every taxpayer and consumer will have to shoulder the heavier and more painful burdens created by the Government's lamentable economic irresponsibility.

9.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): During the past three hours the House has witnessed two separate and very different debates. From the Government back benches we have heard constructive speeches reflecting the very serious concern throughout the country about the disturbing and escalating Post Office deficit which led to last week's proposals by the Post Office for steep increases in charges. We have also heard from my hon. Friends speeches which reflect the problems. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) rightly drew attention to problems in his constituency—problems to which I assure him I shall certainly draw the attention of the Post Office.
From the Conservative Opposition we received, right from the tabling of their spurious motion through to the winding up stage, yet another dosage of the shoddy opportunism which is the only contribution that that once great party


can now make to political debates. I should exclude the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) from those remarks, because he did point out to us that if he loses his seat he will have to go back to work for the Post Office. His majority is 808.
No one can fail to be disturbed at the sharply rocketing cost of posting a letter or making a telephone call. Hon. Members have rightly called for all possible further economies that can reduce costs. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out in his opening speech, such economies are being urgently sought, in addition to those already made.
We have asked the chairman to try to find further reductions in costs for 1975–76. He has offered a saving of £24 million over and above savings of about £33 million agreed before the beginning of the financial year. We have asked him to look around further, in conjunction with the unions, to see whether this figure can be increased to £50 million.
Even the smallest sums are important when we look for economies. I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) who drew attention to the newspaper story last week about the possibility of electronically operated venetian blinds being installed in the projected new Post Office headquarters. When I read the article I was highly disturbed at this idea. I have caused inquiries to be made and I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall request from the Post Office an assurance that such expenditure, as projected will bring about a commensurate saving if it is to go ahead, otherwise we shall ask the Post Office to reconsider this project.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later. I appreciate his point.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way later, if I have time.
We must not deceive ourselves into believing that economies of more than tens of millions of pounds can be achieved in the Post Office's total turn-

over of £2,000 million without a further serious deterioration in services. Hon. Members have pointed with justification to the deterioration that has already taken place in recent years, even though lately some small improvement has been achieved.
However, let us not fool ourselves. The superb postal service that this country has been used to was based on a plentiful supply of cheap labour. Those days are over—over for good. Opposition Members may pine for the days when the butler brought in the Sunday evening delivery on a silver tray prior to discovering the body in the library.

Mr. Tom King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Not at this stage. I shall be coming to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Those days are over—over for good, not just in Britain, but throughout the world. All over the world postal services are operating with heavy deficits. Even in the United States a Government subsidy is needed for the maintenance of a postal service which is inferior to ours. What is more, even with the deterioration in service that we all sadly acknowledge, the British postal service still offers better value for money than do many other services. We can all make our own criticisms, born of bitter experience, but in cost, in frequency of collection and in regularity of delivery, our postal service still compares favourably with most others. While we rightly complain, we should recognise that fact. Especially in door-to-door delivery, on a universal basis, our service is pretty well unique, contrary to the contention of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton).
It is significant that last week the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—themselves outstanding examples of efficient management and profitability—ran articles which aimed to attack the Post Office but in the end had to acknowledge its comparative merits.
The Daily Express, speaking about the American system, said:
There it is common practice in rural areas for people to pick up their own mail from the Post Office.
It is a fact that in the United States 18 per cent. of all letter mail is collected


by the addressees from private boxes in Post Offices.
The Daily Mail—another highly efficient organisation—said:
Britain … is the only country in the world where the postal service has a statutory obligation to put a letter through your letter box rather than leaving it in a box at the farm gate or in a personal box at the Post Office itself.

Mr. Brotherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: Certainly not.
Their proposed new postal rate for a letter, first-class, goes up 1p to 8½p … but that is for a 2 oz. letter against a 0·7 oz. letter which is the limit for the price on the Continent where the postal service is subsidised. …
Against our proposed 8½p here are comparative costs: West Germany 9·7p; Belgium 8·1p; Denmark 7·5p; Eire 7p; France 9p; Italy 7·2p; Luxembourg 5·2p; Netherlands 9·4p.
Our service is worse than we would like, but in an inflationary world no labour-intensive service can be run on the cheap with maximum efficiency. Yet we have been expecting the Post Office to provide a flawless service at rock-bottom prices when no less than 72 per cent. of the total labour effort is concerned with the letter post. For every 4p. spent, 3p goes on wages and salaries.
The Tory Opposition know this very well. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ton-bridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) acknowledged the problem last month, when he posed the question:
Can the existing level of postal services be justified if they require continual subsidisation from one year to another?"—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 122.]
That was the hon. Gentleman who has just wound up for the Opposition on this censure motion. That is why their motion and speeches tonight have been calculated exercises in opportunistic hypocrisy.
After all, just what are they complaining about? Are they complaining that the Post Office is in deficit at all? Even they could not have that much cheek—not with their record. When they came into office five years ago the Post Office was running a surplus of more than £20 million. When they left office last year the Post Office was facing a deficit of nearly £307 million. It was their own policies which were directly to blame. The price restraint policies imposed under their counter-inflation legislation cost the

Post Office over £500 million, much of it as subsidy by a nationalised industry to private industry, for, taking the letter post alone, about 80 per cent. is sent or received by business users.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton, in the only honest speech from the Opposition, pointed out that the main consumers of postal services are businesses and better-off individuals. Therefore, the Opposition are the last people with the right to complain that the Post Office is in deficit.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing asked for our regret at that deficit. It is the Opposition's regret. It is the regret of the legacy that they left us this massive deficit. It is the burden placed upon the Post Office by their counter-inflation legislation. It is they who should express regret.

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister acknowledge that the figures he gave were fraudulent, as they attributed deficits for the financial year 1974-75, when the Labour Government were in office, to the last Conservative Government? The £300 million deficit for the period 1974-75 is wholly the responsibility of the Labour Government.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman should go back to his logarithms if he expects us to take that seriously. Are the Oppositon horrified and surprised by the size of the deficit, which is so much greater than the Chancellor forecast in his Budget Statement? They lack even that excuse.
Five weeks ago in the debate on the Second Reading of the Statutory Corporations Bill, they were hawking around a prospective deficit figure for the Post Office of £300 million and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, while unable to confirm the precise figure, made no bones about the situation when he spoke of
A substantial deterioration, mainly due to higher inflation."—[Official Report, 9th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 48.]
They even knew the reasons for that deterioration, due to higher inflation—most notably the UPW pay settlement, to which reference was made tonight. That settlement, as the House will recall, was criticised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment as outside the social contract guidelines. But


that settlement drew no comment at all from the Tory Opposition. How could it, since the inflationary element built into this settlement was the threshold which was the special inflationary legacy that the Tory Government handed over to us?
Were the Tories shocked that the Post Office had decided that it had no alternative but to pass on this greatly increased deficit in higher prices to the consumer?
How could they be shocked? They knew that it was the policy of this Government, announced as soon as we took office, to phase out subsidies and go for realistic pricing, even though this year we are still subsidising the Post Office to the tune of £70 million. But this is their policy as well. The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing himself, speaking in this House on 9th June, described complete price freedom for the Post Office as a welcome policy.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the same debate, seemed concerned that the Government have still given themselves powers to subsidise in the future. So the Opposition, least of all, can complain if their deficit, exacerbated by their policies, is turned into the price increases that they advocate. So what conceivable basis can they have for the demand in this motion for an inquiry into the Post Office as a prelude to increased Government intervention?
It cannot be because they have always been advocates of Government intervention in nationalised industries, and, in particular, the Post Office. Indeed, when the Post Office Bill, setting up the present corporation, was going through

this House, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), as their spokesman, was perfectly revolted by the idea. He denounced any scope for political meddling. He was repelled by the thought of backstairs influence and interference by the Minister.

Maybe, then, while opposed to Government interference in general, the Opposition believe in it in this particular case because of the unique incapacity of the management of the Post Office. That would be the strangest situation of all. Because of course the man who runs the Post Office is the man they put in charge. They put him in charge on a very controversial occasion that this House remembers. And in case anyone forgets, let me remind the House of how Mr. Christopher Chataway, as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, described the situation when he sacked Lord Hall, and appointed Sir William Ryland in his place. The decision was made, Mr. Chataway said, in the interests of the efficient management of the Post Office. They appointed Sir William to secure efficient management, and Sir William is still in charge. Has Sir William changed, or have they? No, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members are right to express misgivings about the serious state of the Post Office's finances—but not the Opposition. This is not a genuine censure motion. This is the criminal revisting the scene of his crime. He has been caught red handed. We ask the House to vote this motion down.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 260.

Division No. 283.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashley, Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bean, R. E.
Cant, R. B.
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cartwright, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clemitson, Ivor
Deakins, Eric


Boardman, H.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)




Delargy, Hugh
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Doig, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A.
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Edelman, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Selby, Harry


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


English, Michael
Litterick, Tom
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Faulds, Andrew
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Skinner, Dennis


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gould, Bryan
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Graham, Ted
Millan, Bruce
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller, Mrs. Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tomney, Frank


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Roland
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike
Ward, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David


Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkinson, John


Horam, John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Weetch, Ken


Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Owen, Dr David
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Padley, Walter
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Park, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parker, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Woodall, Alec


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
price, William (Rugby)
Woof, Robert


John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. J. D. Dormant and


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. John Ellis.


Judd, Frank






NOES


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Bell, Ronald


Aitken, Jonathan
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bennett, Dr Frederic (Torbay)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Kenneth
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)


Arnold, Tom
Banks, Robert
Benyon, W.


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Beith, A. J.
Berry, Hon Anthony







Biffen, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pink, R. Bonner


Body, Richard
Hayhoe, Barney
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bottomley, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Higgins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Holland, Philip
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brittan, Leon
Hordern, peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reid, George


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Hurd, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Bulmer, Esmond
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp; W'dt'd)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Royle, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Salnsbury, Tim


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cockcroft, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Scott, Nicholas


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cordle, John H.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Corrie, John
Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Crawford, Douglas
Lane, David
Silvester, Fred


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Crouch, David
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawson, Nigel
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spence, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Durant, Tony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stanley, John


Dykes, Hugh
MacCormick, Iain
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Elliott, Sir William
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Tebbit, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Dafytdd (Merioneth)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Thompson, George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fox, Marcus
Mayhew, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Freud, Clement
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fry, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Viggers, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, Geraint
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Watt, Hamish


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gorst, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wells, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Grieve, Percy
Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Newton, Tony
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Grist, Ian
Nott, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hall, Sir John
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Younger, Hon George


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, John (Harrow West)



Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pardoe, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Cecil Parkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House regrets that the actions of the previous Administration in imposing artificial restrictions on the development of the

nationalised industries created severe financial problems for the Post Office; and endorses deficits of the nationalised industries and the Government objective of phasing out the restoring them to profitability.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, consideration of Lords Amendments to the Coal Industry Bill and the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

NEW RIGHT OF BOARD TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT TO ENABLE COAL TO BE WORKED.

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
(4) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act, where damage to any land or to anything lawfully on that land whenever constructed or brought thereon arises from the exercise of the right to withdraw support conferred on the Board by this section, the Board shall either—

(a) pay proper compensation for the damage including such consequential loss as would be recoverable in an action of nuisance in respect of that withdrawal, or
(b) with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to the payment of compensation for the damage, make good the damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him;
and, where appropriate, the Board shall pay such proper compensation in accordance with paragraph (a) above for damage not made good in accordance with paragraph (b) above.

10.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
In dealing with this amendment on subsidence compensation, I would point out that the Government have never envisaged the Bill—we discussed this matter in Committee—as the right vehicle for making the fundamental change in the compensation provisions for subsidence damage which the Lords Amendment represents. The Bill merely sought to re-enact the compensation provisions from the Coal Act 1938. Together with the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 they provide the basis

of a compensation régime which by and large has worked very well over a number of years.
The National Coal Board goes well beyond its statutory liabilities to avoid individual hardship. In the case of the Selby development it has reached broad agreement with the National Farmers' Union about compensation for crop loss and other matters. The régime appeared to give little cause for complaint until the introduction of the Bill. There was little pressure for change. Nevertheless, an interdepartmental committee of officials was studying the situation to see what improvements, if any, were necessary.
It has been said during the passage of the Bill that it was only right that the National Coal Board should have to pay improved compensation for damage and losses arising from subsidence as quid pro quo for the sweeping new powers to withdraw support which it was said the Bill would provide. Although Clause 2 may give the appearance of providing sweeping new powers, the reality is quite the reverse. The new powers are simply a clarification of the existing rights, to put the matter beyond doubt that the board has the right to withdraw lateral as well as vertical support. It has hitherto always believed that it had such rights and has conducted its operations in that belief. It is generally impossible to withdraw vertical support without at the same time withdrawing lateral support. As regards the generality of surface owners in coal areas, the new powers will make no difference. Existing obligations, whether they are based on formal written agreements, verbal understandings or gentlemen's agreements, will be honoured by the board.
Thus, the call for compensation to be improved to balance the granting of new powers has no base in reality. The existing régime provides a stable basis for operations and transactions, both underground and on the surface. In this way people know where they stand. The National Coal Board is able to plan operations on the basis of compensation costs which can be estimated. On the surface land values can be based on a compensation probability in line with well-known procedures.
To make the fundamental change envisaged in the Lords Amendment would upset these procedures. The board would have to reassess its activities in the light of the increased compensation costs which it might incur. Some faces might have to be closed and the development of others modified. On the surface land values would be affected and, until the newer situation had been operating for some time, there would probably be a great deal of uncertainty.
Another bad feature of the amendment is that it drastically changes the balance between the National Coal Board and the surface owners without any safeguard. Under the present arrangement the surface owner generally has an incentive to take such steps as he can to minimise the damage which might arise from subsidence. Under the amended provision, that incentive virtually would disappear. Consequently, there could be a good deal more damage and loss from subsidence than there is at present. Apart from throwing a big burden of additional costs on the board, that would also lead to a waste of national resources which at present are being safeguarded by the prudence which the existing régime encourages land owners to adopt.
As has been said many times in the passage of the Bill, subsidence compensation is a complex matter which does not lend itself to the simple change which the Lords Amendment would make without running the risk of undesirable and unwelcome side effects and disruptions of the kind I have outlined.
For all these reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment. In so doing, I repeat the assurances which have been given on a number of occasions—namely, that the working party of officials will complete their review of mining subsidence as quickly as possible and that an early opportunity will be sought to introduce amending legislation if that turns out to be desirable.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: The Minister in his closing remarks gave clear reasons for the amendment. Despite what was contained in the holy writ which he read to us, he well knows that the compensation provisions at present are inadequate and unsatisfactory and are recognised as being so by bodies such as the National

Farmers' Union and also by the National Coal Board.
The promise with which the Minister ended his remarks—namely, that the interdepartmental committee will report speedily—is a promise which I have heard him utter on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill. He well knows that the inquiry has been sitting since 1971. We learned from a recent parliamentary answer that the committee has had only six meetings in four years. Therefore, there is not much hope of obtaining a speedy answer from that body. The Bill when enacted will join a number of Acts of Parliament governing the operations of the coal mining industry. Many of them affect the right to extract coal and, as a result, the rights of surface owners. There is an undisputed common law right in respect of the supporting services. That has been established over the years and would remain in an unencumbered state provided that other legislation did not interfere.
As the Under-Secretary of State has pointed out, the two principal Acts of Parliament which have interfered are the 1938 Coal Act and the 1957 Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act.
The Bill we are considering introduces a number of opportunities for the National Coal Board to win coal in new areas. It was because all hon. Members wanted an exploitation of our coal energy resources that Conservative Members did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Indeed, I welcomed the Bill as a major step forward in winning these new resources. I am quite prepared, as an enthusiast for the industry, to repeat that promise. However, the fact is that the Bill introduces significant changes which will materially affect the surface owners in those areas where coal is to be won.
The power which the Under-Secretary brushed aside as not being a sweeping power nevertheless creates, according to the wording of the Bill, a new right. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the Bill it states that:
Clause 2 and Schedule 1: give the National Coal Board a general right to withdraw support from land so far as is required for the working of any coal instead of the rights available under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Coal Act 1938. The new right allows


support to be withdrawn from any land including land adjacent to that directly above coal being worked.
It is a new and important right and I do not quarrel with it. All I am saying is that if the right is to be exercised, those people who may be adversely affected by that extraction taking place should also be protected.
This is not a party matter in any sense. During our discussions in Committee hon. Members of all parties were perfectly happy to point out the importance of this compensation provision. The fact of the matter remains that as at present drafted the compensation provisions in Clause 2 are inadequate, not only because they are now challenged by many respectable bodies but because Clause 2 provides this new right in areas where coal has not been worked before—perhaps, for instance, in my constituency of the New Forest. Those areas where mining is not a known art but where it is a practice to which people are not accustomed could see serious problems created for surface owners who have buildings which could be subject to damage from subsidence.
The Lords Amendment at least provides, in the interim to which the Minister has referred—namely between a Bill to tidy up these compensation matters and the report of the inter-departmental inquiry—some safeguard which can immediately be incorporated into this legislation without in any way delaying either the Selby project or any other important aspect which this legislation covers.
Only today I received, as other hon. Members received, a note from the National Farmers' Union which does not give quite the same rosy view of the past practices of the National Coal Board as the Under-Secretary would have us take. It states clearly that the National Farmers' Union regards this Lords Amendment as being of considerable, indeed, paramount importance.
10.30 p.m.
The NFU note states:
It is of great importance to the agricultural industry that this amendment be retained in the Bill if it is to become law. Though this matter is affecting all sections of the community in areas affected by coal mining subsidence, it has an obvious and particular importance for agriculture. The payment of compensation in respect of coal mining subsidence damage is at present regulated by the Coal-Mining (Sub-

sidence) Act 1957. This provides for compensation in respect of immediate damage, but does not include a legal right to the recovery of compensation in respect of consequential loss and it is therefore an inadequate basis of compensation.
That is perfectly true. It covers immediate damage, but if as a result of that damage something else goes wrong—if, for example a water supply is affected—that is not covered by Clause 2. It is that consequential loss for which the surface owner has no redress. It is with that loss that we are concerned.
The NFU note ends with these words:
The provisions of the 1957 Act, without this augmentation, do not bear any relation to the practical realities of the agriculture which they were originally designed to protect. The National Farmers' Union has long contended that there should be statutory provisions for the payment of compensation by the National Coal Board to farmers in respect of consequential loss resulting from subsidence caused by coal mining activity.
Having listened to that, the House will recognise that while the happy relationship which the farming industry has with the coalmining industry, and, which the Under-Secretary of State described in such honied terms, may exist in most cases, that is not the general rule and the industry is concerned about this problem.
Not only is that industry concerned, but the Under-Secretary of State will be aware of what has been taking place on the M6 motorway. The busiest motorway service station in Britain is now closed because of mining subsidence. The Under-Secretary of State is, I know, familiar with this problem, but it was brought out clearly in the reports in The Times and other newspapers at the end of May. On 30th May there was a report in The Times, under the heading "Mining closes M6 service area", as follows:
The northbound side of one of Britain's busiest motorway service areas, on the M6 at Corley, near Coventry, is closing down its fuel and restaurant facilities next Monday because of the danger of mining subsidence.
It was opened only three years ago with the final link-up of the Midland motorway network and yesterday a spokesman of Trust Houses Forte, the operators, said: 'It is one of the busiest in the country but the interests of public safety must come first.'
The Coal Board said that operations would continue for at least a year and a probable maximum of two years. An official said: 'We have advised that the fuel tanks at the service area should be drained for safety. We have taken steps to minimise subsidence by reducing the length of the coalface and the thickness


taken out. The area being worked is known as the North Pillar and the face is already under the service area, but not yet under the built-up part. It will not be until November, although it is liable to come under the influence of possible subsidence in July or August.
The Trust Houses Forte official in London said: 'The decision to close down the northbound section is endorsed by the Coal Board and the Department of the Environment. We think it is the proper action to take in the interests of public safety'.
There may well be a claim for consequential loss because the service area is allocated by the Department of the Environment through the Minister for Transport to various catering companies. The fact that about 80 people have lost their jobs at this service station and that no doubt a certain amount of trade is also lost may well lead to a case in the courts. Given the provisions of Clause 2, there is no way of arriving at a reasonable figure for a consequential loss.

Mr. John Ryman: The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to a consequential loss not being provided for specifically by the Bill. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that a farmer who suffers a consequential loss has a common law remedy for negligence quite apart from the provisions of the Bill? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect in saying that there is no legal remedy for consequential losses by farmers.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to me with the attention that I would have wished. I was referring to Clause 2 of the Bill, which is the law we are about to make in Parliament, and there it does not refer in any way to consequential loss.

Mr. Ryman: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. It is the common law remedy which exists, quite apart from Clause 2.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: As I pointed out at the beginning, the common law right of everybody in this country is the right to support under his land, but it is eroded by various Acts of Parliament. Of course there is a common law right to recover damages for loss, but are we suggesting that if somebody suffers serious damage to a water course on his farm, he has to fight this beak and claw through the courts without being able to have any

recourse to a law which states that the Coal Board shall have a responsibility in the matter? I do not think that that is fair at all.
I do not see any reason why we should be passing legislation which gives any authority the right to come on to anybody's land or under his land and cause him damage which may lead to severe financial loss, and then expect him to have to fight it through the courts.
If the hon. Gentleman had followed our proceedings he would know that in Clause 1, on the pneumoconiotics provisions, it was precisely this point about the old common law right—on which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out so many times, he had to fight for people who were suffering from pneumoconiosis—which led to this provision in the Bill in Clause 1 to make it an obligation that these people should be looked after, I suggest that that obligation should be just as important in Clause 2.
There are not only those two cases. I could cite others. The British Ceramics Manufacturers' Federation made it clear that its members too, are extremely concerned. They have every reason to be, because, as I said at the beginning, in this matter the Government have been dragging their feet very badly. In a Written Question recently to the Secretary of State for Energy about this interdepartmental committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, I asked the Secretary of State for Energy
what are the terms of reference of the interdepartmental committee appointed in 1971 to consider the questions of compensation for damage and injury resulting from mining or other industrial operations; how many times the committee has met; when it is due to report; whether its conclusions will be made public; and whether it is his intention to incorporate the recommendations in the current Coal Industry Bill.
The answer was:
The terms of reference of the Working Group on Mining Subsidence Compensation are: 'To study the problem of damage resulting from coal mining subsidence and to make recommendations with regard to two separate issues, viz.: (a) the National Coal Bord's statutory liability to pay compensation; (b) the Board's attitude towards the cost of structural precautions to lessen the risk of damage to new buildings'.
The answer went on:
The Working Group has had six full meetings and in addition various consultations have taken place by correspondence and between


individual members. It has been asked to report as quickly as possible after it has had time to give proper consideration to the new evidence which has been coming to light … As is usual in the case of committees of officials, the report will not be made public but the Government will make a full statement on the subject when it has had time to consider the report. If new legislation is then called for, an early opportunity will be sought for it.—[Official Report, 23rd May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 699.]
This committee—and I am not blaming only the hon. Gentleman's Department here, because two Governments are involved; indeed, three separate Parliaments—has been sitting for four years and has had six meetings. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Coal Board has given evidence to this body? I am not at all sure that it has. In fact, I am not at all sure that there is any sign of this committee reporting at all. I do not think it right to have legislation introduced into the House at this time which calls for the introduction of new rights to withdraw support without either having that body's recommendations available to the Government or a satisfactory compensation Bill being made available.
It boils down to whether the Minister is satisfied to rely entirely upon the Coal Act of 1938. I was always told that the wicked old days of the private coal owner before the days of nationalisation were so evil as to be hardly mentioned in polite company, yet the Minister's argument relies upon that Act of Parliament. That and the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act of 1957 are two pillars of the law which obviously have been overtaken by events.
In Committee, when the Minister referred to both the inquiry and the Acts, he said:
Consequential losses and blight are not included as such in the provisions of either the Coal Act 1938 or the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, which are the existing basis for subsidence compensation."— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11th March 1975, c. 99.]
From the hon. Gentleman's own lips, it is clear that these two real concerns have to be covered some time soon.
This amendment from the other place at least builds in a safeguard. At least it includes the phrase "consequential damage". It also gives people an opportunity of treating for nuisance. It provides for individuals a safeguard, even if

it is not the full safeguard which the Opposition wanted.
I am afraid that the story of this compensation discussion is one of slovenly and half-hearted attitudes by many people who should have the individual citizen's interests very much more at heart than they appear to have. The Opposition do not believe that this Bill should be passed into law without giving those individual citizens some real rights written in legislation upon which they can rely should the industry spread into their areas. I remind every hon. Member that his own constituents may be affected. Are hon. Members satisfied that the gentlemen's agreement to which the Minister referred and the old Acts of pre-war days are sufficient safeguards? The Opposition do not think that they are. For that reason, we shall vote against the Government's motion.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: It pains me to have to prefer the arguments of the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) to those put forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I say that because I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend. In all other respects, his judgments are cogent and compelling. I regret that his adjudication of the merits of this case seems to me to fall below the merits of the argument itself.
This is not a matter which should be treated in a partisan spirit. It is one of great concern not only to farmers but even more so to industrialists and to those whom they employ. It is a matter which concerns workers as well as manufacturers, and that is why I wish to outline briefly the history of this discussion and also to discuss the Lords Amendment.
I am no stranger to this problem. For many years, I have been in contact with successive chairmen of the National Coal Board and with Ministers who have been dealing with questions of subsidence.
I am surprised that no mention has been made of the Robens Agreement. This matter of subsidence first became one of great concern in Coventry when the NCB published its intention to start mining in certain areas, especially in my own constituency in the north, where the proposal was a matter of great concern to manufacturers.

Mr. Eadie: The Robens Agreement does apply.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: I am sure that the Robens Agreement does apply. That has been underlined by Sir Derek Ezra. I am not so much dealing with its current application. I would like to deal with the concern felt by manufacturers in my constituency over this problem. What we are discussing is not something new. It has been going on for a long time and has been dealt with pragmatically in the past.
The Robens Agreement of 1968, in which I played some small part, was brought about because there was great concern among manufacturers of precision machinery in Coventry, people who work to tolerances of thousandths of a millimetre, that because of undermining of their factories they might be disadvantaged. They feared that they might not only incur direct physical loss but suffer consequential damage, with the result that their workers would be put out of work and they might suffer closure such as that on the M6, but which in the case of a manufacturing company is obviously of much deeper concern.
A gentlemen's agreement was mentioned. That is all very well. One of the reasons why those directly concerned want the situation to be changed statutorily is that there is no absolute guarantee that either Ministers or Chairmen of the National Coal Board will always be gentlemen. It is, therefore, necessary to embody in the law the broad preoccupation which is felt by those who are worried about what might happen.
My hon. Friend touched on the existence of an inter-departmental working party considering the general question of compensation. As the hon. Member for New Forest has said, this working party has been in existence since 1971. In the whole of those five years it has met six times. I wonder whether it should be called the non-working party. A working party dealing with such a vital problem which is so dilatory in reaching a conclusion is surely not to be relied on by us tonight. That is why so many of those concerned feel that this Bill is the occasion for building in specific measures to make sure that at

least in this area there shall be proper provision for compensation.
It has been said that the better is the enemy of the good. I have no doubt that if we had a general decision about compensation which would be of wide and general application we would all be much better off and manufacturers and workers could sleep more easily at night, knowing that if anything happened they would be compensated. For the time being we are dealing with the coal industry and the problem of undermining manufacturing industry in places like Coventry.
I quote from a letter I received from the Director of the Coventry and District Engineering Employers' Association. Although he speaks in the name of the employers I can say from my own contacts with the trade unionists in Coventry that what he says expresses the feelings not only of the employers but of the workers in industry there, too. He says:
I know that you are very well aware of our long term concern in relation to compensation for consequential loss arising from the withdrawal of lateral support. I am sure that you will readily appreciate that in a city like Coventry which depends for its prosperity so heavily upon industry that compensation merely for the immediate physical loss caused by subsidence can fall far short of providing anything like an adequate remedy for the firm concerned.
Then he comes to the nub of the matter, namely Clause 2:
For example, even a very modest degree of subsidence could cause a factory assembly line to be taken out of commission for many months with very serious consequences to the firm in terms of lost production not to mention the effect on employment in the factory concerned. Here I would also feel that you would readily see the essential equity of industry's case.
He then goes on to give the roll-call of the firms mentioned. I think it will be agreed that in giving this roll-call of industrial firms concerned he and I, in quoting him, are referring not just to parochial matters in my constituency, but to the concern of the whole nation. He continues:
At present some of the major companies who are vitally concerned include Courtaulds, Dunlop, Alfred Herbert and Morris Engines to name but a few, but really the same problems apply to many other employers to the north of the city.
In mentioning those firms, which are directly over the potential line of mining


underneath the city of Coventry, I think we are dealing with the legitimate claims of those engaged in industry in the city to see that in this important Bill these dangers are recognised. Perhaps I might in parentheses say that I find this a curious hybrid Bill when I see pneumoconiosis, which we all deplore and are happy to see provided for, somehow related to the more controversial question of mining under various cities and farmland.
Be that as it may, the fact is that we have a proposal here which has dangers which has been recognised by my hon. Friend's predecessors. Indeed, they have been recognised by previous chairmen of the National Coal Board. I pay tribute both to Lord Robens and to Sir Derek Ezra who are fully apprised of the dangers. They have promised that the so-called gentlemen's agreement will be maintained.
But, even accepting that, we have now reached a point where the Lords, in their wisdom, have produced a sensible recommendation which I believe should have the non-partisan support of the House. What they are asking is reasonable. I hope that it will be supported.
I should like to give one final illustration. When the first intentions were announced, that the National Coal Board might mine under the City of Coventry, naturally the most acute anxiety was the fear that mining would be carried out underneath the cathedral. That was a legitimate anxiety which immediately produced a proper emotional reaction.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Mr. Alec Woodall (Hemsworth) indicated dissent.

Mr. Edelman: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is shaking his head because he disputes the facts. The facts are as I have stated them. There was anxiety about the possibility of mining being carried out underneath Coventry cathedral. But the National Coal Board has quite properly given undertakings and guarantees that that will not happen.
It is equally proper, when we are concerned with factories employing tens of thousands of people—factories on which the national interest depends—that certain inhibitions should be placed on those who might threaten those factories.
The hon. Member for New Forest properly underlined the fact that probably all hon. Members, vitally concerned about the future of the coal industry, are anxious not to weaken the power of the National Coal Board but to extend its workings wherever possible in the interests of the nation and the workers in that industry. We would applaud any intention by my hon. Friend, which he has exercised in many other directions, to try to provide facilities for the expansion of the industry and the welfare of those who work in it.
But we are dealing with something which is countervailing. We want to ensure that some inhibition is imposed on the NCB so that it will not exercise its power arbitrarily. There is a danger that great public authorities which are statutorily exempt from the burden of having to pay compensation in the event will abuse that power. Therefore, unless my hon. Friend can produce compelling reasons for the case that he has made today, I shall, with regret, but in accordance with the general principle that I have maintained for many years, go into the Lobby against him in support of my argument.

Mr. John Farr: I support the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman).
I shall refer to the agricultural arguments advanced by the Minister. He said that if this Lords Amendment were accepted, additional compensation costs would be incurred by the NCB. I object to that. If the NCB does not meet the costs, the farmers must do so. The considerable costs involved were not covered by the clause as it went to the House of Lords. It ill behoves the Minister to say to farmers, "Never mind the extra costs which farming must meet, but the Government will not allow the NCB to compensate you" when the Government recently produced a very good White Paper calling for additional food expansion from British farms.
The Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 is 18 years old and is now hopelessly out of date. It was geared to the immediate post-war period. It provides for compensation for immediate damage. However, it does not give the farmer or


agriculturist a legal right to compensation for loss.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Why is that 1957 Act hopelessly out of date? I was a member of the Committee on that Bill. My constituency suffers tremendously from mining subsidence, but farmers have never had a better deal.

Mr. Farr: I think that it will be better if the hon. Gentleman waits until I tell the House why that Act is hopelessly out of date and thoroughly inadequate.
There are several reasons why this clause was inadequate before it was amended in the Lords. Reference was made to land drainage. If subsidence affects the delicate pattern of drainage in a field, it may take years before the full effect of the damage is apparent. It may take several years of declining output from that field before the farmer realises that the land drainage is affected and that the land is becoming water sodden. Under the Bill as it left this House, farmers would be entitled to claim only for the repair to the pattern of land drainage when the damage was discovered but would have no right to claim for any consequential loss which may have arisen over a number of years, causing a steady reduction in the output of crops in those fields.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) asked me a question. He is now speaking to someone else.
I give another example why agriculture is hard hit. The 1957 Act is out of date in relation to farm structures. I have in mind certain farm buildings which have been placed out of use by land subsidence. They may be out of use, depending on the extent of the damage, for some time. I am not thinking only of farm buildings. I am thinking of expensive milking parlours, for instance, which may be put out of action for a period. The farmer may get compensation towards putting them back into working order, but there is no compensation for the consequential loss of income as a result of the disorganisation caused by the damage which has affected his particular enterprise.
11.0 p.m.
There are many other examples. Concrete yards can be put out of action. Fuel tanks can be rendered dangerous.

Another example which can hit farming very hard—I know that this has hit a farmer in Yorkshire very hard indeed—is when a farm road, in the middle of a busy harvest season, suddenly becomes unuscable because of subsidence. The farmer can manage, but long and expensive detours are made necessary for machinery and equipment and delays in the harvest occur as a result of the upheaval of the road.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest mentioned the example of a burst water main and the damage that that can cause. Many farmers today are on metered water supplies. From a slightly fractured water main, water can seep away for a number of years before the loss is pinpointed. The damaged pipe will be repaired at no expense to the farmer, but the loss while water has been seeping away into the ground for some years is not the subject of any compensation.
This Lords Amendment is particularly valuable for one special reason. The boundaries of existing coalfields are always being extended. New coalfields are always being sought and prepared for production. Some of our best agricultural land lies over our most prolific coalfields. It is for that reason alone that I urge the Government to bring this piece of legislation up to date and to provide a fair deal for agriculture.

Mr. William Wilson: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) in opposing the Government's motion to disagree with this Lords Amendment.
Those of us who represent Coventry know full well that although we have no coal mines within our constituencies, the mines situated outside our boundaries operate to a considerable extent beneath the City of Coventry. It is not only the Engineering Employers' Association that has called upon us to support the Lords Amendment. The Coventry City Council has also called upon us to back the Lords in their amendment.
Even without the Coventry City Council urging me to take this action, it still seems to me that the Bill, as it was proposed by the Government, is unfair in the matter of compensation.
All too many years ago, when I was a law student, I learned that whoever owned the surface owned right the way up to heaven and right the way down to hell. That was before the days of the National Coal Board. But the common law of England has always existed. Unless there can be some good reason for breaking the principle of the common law of England, I stand by them.
It is because of that principle and because tonight I have heard no reason, and in looking through reports of earlier debates I have seen no reason, why the common law of England in respect of the right of support and of damages and entitlement to damages should be broken, that I must take this stand. This is not a matter for gentlemen's agreements, for nods and winks, and for the old boys' act. Simply, it is that a person who owns the surface is entitled to the right of support and, if that support is broken, to compensation for the consequential damage.
That is a substantial principle of English law. It should not be broken, even by the National Coal Board. For that reason, unless the Minister says something quite extraordinary, I shall vote, with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West in support of the amendment.

Sir Paul Bryan: In Committee, the Opposition won the argument for consequential compensation. There was no answer to it. But inevitably we lost the Division. Our colleagues in the Lords won both the argument, in an admirable debate, and the Division and we congratulate them on their victory.
Until I heard the Under-Secretary of State tonight, I had had new hope for, by chance, reconsideration of this amendment coincides with the arrival of a new Minister at the Department of Energy. Looking at the problems with a fresh mind and for the first time, he could not fail to be struck by the lack of justice of the Bill as it stood before the Lords Amendment. So far we have been up against two Ministers, both with a mining background, who have lived with a ludicrous situation so long that they do not appreciate its absurdity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) in Committee noted that if the fatal pipe at Flixborough chemical

works had been broken by subsidence, and not by some other cause, the company would have had a legal claim against the coal board for repair of the pipe but none for the huge plant which the fracture was responsible for destroying.
The board is not as other men. It enjoys a unique immunity. Who would have believed that a public institution like the National Coal Board would have had the arrogance to presume that that situation is acceptable to other people? The only answer to the unanswerable case we advanced in Committee was, "Do not worry. The NCB are good about this sort of thing". In another place, the Minister bluntly stated that granting rights of compensation for consequential damage would lead to unnecessary litigation for damages. As litigation would not arise if the sufferer were satisfied, the noble Lord clearly was not so sure that NCB paternalism would survive a legal case.
May I kill once and for all the idea that the NCB has such an admirable reputation for fair dealing that the citizen need not worry about having no legal rights in his dealings with the board? That is not the impression of my constituents. They had no knowledge of coal mining, and only the discovery of the Selby coalfield has brought them into contact with the NCB. In this community the NCB had to build up a reputation from scratch and so far it has not done well. Take the case of the main line railway. Suddenly, without notice or consultation with the local community, it was announced in the course of the public inquiry that the stretch of the main line railway between York and Selby was to be removed and the people of Selby were to lose the great asset—which they had enjoyed for the past 100 years—of being on the main London to Scotland line.
It is perhaps fanciful to imagine that the community would receive compensation for this very real loss which is a direct consequence of the NCB's mining operations. From the way in which the people of Selby have been treated, they do not get the impression that the board minds very much about this severe consequential damage. The story of the motorway service area at Corley only confirms their worst fears. Who else but the board would expect to have the right


to take action, with impunity, the consequences of which have been to close down a lawful trading concern, deprive 80 people of their jobs and cost hundreds of thousands of pounds? If private individuals or firms took such action, they would have to face the consequences in the courts. The board has the privilege of legal immunity. The deplorable aspect of this is that Ministers see nothing wrong in this outrageous anomaly.
The amendment gives people affected by the board's mining operations the same rights as they would have if their property were interferred with by anybody else. Surely this is a perfectly natural and legitimate aspiration?
During the Committee stage, farmers were fobbed off with assurances on compensation that appeared to have no legal validity. I am glad to see that the National Farmers' Union has reacted with commendable vigour to claim for its members their legal rights. In the memorandum we have all received from the union, it states:
It is of great importance to the agricultural industry that this amendment be retained in the Bill if it is to become law.
The statement goes on to repeat the arguments we put in Committee highlighting the damage that subsidence could do in such areas as the Selby coalfield. It says:
The 1957 Act is inadequate for a number of reasons. In the first place, even slight subsidence may result in disturbances to drainage patterns. This can be extremely important especially in areas with a high water table, where the land may be liable to flooding and high agricultural production has been achieved only by consistent improvement and steadily developed under-drainage. Disturbance to this drainage may well result in a degradation of the land and a continuing loss of crops over a number of years. This continuing loss of crops may he the only available evidence for some considerable time that damage to the drainage system has resulted from coal-mining activity. Lack of liability on the part of the National Coal Board for continuing loss may therefore mean that by the time any deficiency in the restoration of the drainage system can be shown the farmer is unable to claim compensation in respect of the damage and loss suffered.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Surely all this was brought out in the public inquiry? The NFU and other people gave evidence at the inquiry. Would it not be as well to wait until the report comes out?

Sir Paul Bryan: I gave evidence at the inquiry, as did my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). May I remind hon. Members of what was said at the inquiry by Mr. Griffiths, the QC for the National Coal Board? He said:
You have heard evidence that the Board works fairly and generously within what the law provides and I recognise that consequential losses are not all covered by the law of compensation. I would remind you that, as you yourself observed early in the inquiry, that compensation is a matter to be considered by Parliament and is perhaps best considered by them.
We are doing tonight as Mr. Griffiths has recommended.
11.15 p.m.
Both in this House and another place the Government have been humiliated in their efforts to defend the proposition that in a free country the citizen need have no legal redress for consequential damage against a public board. That is the long and the short of it. As this proposition was so clearly indefensible, the only resort has been feebly to fall back on to a committee—and what a committee! It has sat on average just over once a year for the last four or five years. Clearly, even now we are not being given any idea of when it is to complete its findings. We are told "as soon as possible" and "with all speed" but that is totally unsatisfactory in view of the seriousness of the case.
I am reminded of the situation with the capital transfer tax and agriculture. The tax has been imposed and subsequently we have been promised a committee to decide how much damage it will do to agriculture, the tax already having, been established.
The discovery of this lift. seam between Barnsley and York gives the Government and the National Coal Board the chance to create the perfect coalfield community. This huge deposit of coal has fallen into the board's hands free of all charge and compensation. The conditions are so favourable that it will be mined at a fraction of average costs. All the circumstances are there for the Government to show the utmost generosity to the local community, the only people in the United Kingdom who will suffer rather than benefit from the coal development.
The chance of winning this good will is rejected at every opportunity. The old


wooden toll bridge at Selby, built in 1792 and crying out for replacement for the last 50 years, is to be the gateway to the largest and most modern coalfield in Europe. The Barlby-Riccall by-pass is to be cancelled because of the coming into operation of the coalfield. No assurance is given that schools and other essential services will be expanded to meet the incoming population. Now in the House of Commons the Minister is about to tell my constituents that they have no legal redress if, as a consequence of the National Coal Board's activities, their homes, businesses or farms are damaged. That is no way to win the confidence of Yorkshire people.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I do not wish to detain the House for long. I say immediately, so as not to provoke the wrath of my hon. Friends below the Gangway, that I regard the National Coal Board as a dynamic nationalised industry, and one with tremendous social conscience. It is my favourite nationalised industry. When at home I look out of the front window of the room in which I think my profoundest thoughts I can see what is alleged and reputed to be the largest coal refuse tip in Western Europe—nearly 16 million tons of refuse which the NCB very generously is helping the city council of Stoke-on-Trent to transform into a magnificent land reclamation scheme. If I am slightly critical of the NCB I trust that my deeper motivations will be clearly understood.
I think that all the arguments on this amendment have been deployed, but I have a few comments to make about my own constituency. I do so, first, because after the war Stoke-on-Trent—I hope that I can have the agreement of my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) on this matter—took the initiative as regards the negotiations that led to the 1957 Act. That was a step forward. That step was taken after 20 years' experience of the previous Act. Some of us are now hoping that the Coal Industry Act 1975 will take the matter a further step forward along the lines that have been indicated.
It is important to think not only in terms of the broad acres of agriculture or of such sophisticated modern cities

as Coventry but of some of the older urban areas such as Stoke-on-Trent. Stoke represents an area of approximately 33 square miles and has a population of a quarter of a million. By statistical coincidence, not only is 85 per cent. of the city undermined but this relatively small area, a unique industrial concentration, produces some 80 per cent. of the total ceramic output of Great Britain. In the surrounding area it is the main employer of labour.
In those circumstances, subsidence is a serious problem, despite the guffaws of some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I know that in Stoke-on-Trent we are fortunate in terms of vertical movement because we have the soft cushion of etruria marl which, in conjuncture with coal, made the great pottery industry possible. It is a tremendous industry producing the exquisite wares of Wedgwood, Spode, Doulton—I must put them all on the record because if I do not my omissions will be noted.
It should be pointed out that 60 per cent. of the industry's products is exported to some of the richest countries in the world.
We are faced with a complete change in the techniques of manufacturing in the pottery industry. The old pottery companies which were, to some extent, a source of jokes and to a larger extent a source of pollution, are using the new types of kiln. Although the kilns do not work to the precision of thousandths of an inch, which is common in the motor industry, they require accuracy in terms of the great quantities of pottery that pass through them at a certain speed and at a constant temperature. That means that if anything goes wrong with the foundations there is not only a serious and immediate loss but a consequential loss of a high order. I think that the Minister should face that situation. It may be that we come along with far too many constituency points and problems, but we are talking about the employment of thousands of people and not only the profits of a number of firms
If the Minister will say that he will concede this point of compensation along the lines that have been suggested, I think that we can leave the rest to the working party. I am not as cynical as many of my hon. Friends, and I believe that it


is doing a grand job. It is doing it a little more slowly than some of us would wish because it wants to do it thoroughly.

Mr. Edelman: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would do a grander job if it did it a little more quickly?

Mr. Cant: I am no expert on these matters, but my hon. Friend may well have a point.
I conclude by saying that if the Minister will make a concession on the point I have mentioned, we can leave the rest of the wider issues to the working party.
Nobody has yet mentioned the cost of implementing the principle. I only wish to emphasise that this expenditure, although not perhaps important in a global sense involving the overall National Coal Board's requirements or indeed the Government's public sector borrowing requirement, will be enormously important to individual firms.

Mr. Peter Emery: I wish to be brief at this hour and will make only three major points.
When I found myself in the Minister's shoes with responsibility for these matters, I gave instructions that the committee in question should report as soon as humanly possible. I think that there is reason to be critical of the fact that we have not had that report earlier.
Secondly, I accept that the National Coal Board has more or less, without exception, been both thorough and generous in the compensation which it has given. I wish to pay tribute to the board on that score. But it is a nonsense to say that the board has never made a mistake in these matters. Therefore, it is nonsense to resist the Lords Amendment. The Government cannot say that there has been no element of consequential damage in respect of the National Coal Board. If that is the case, why do not the Government establish this procedure in legislation?
It is easy to be generous when the economic situation allows adequate money to be allocated to these matters, but at times of major economic stringency the board has tended to interpret the letter of the agreement and not to be quite as generous as it has been in the past. Since we are now facing a

situation of economic difficulty and since the Minister appears to take the view that the "ad hockery" and the Robens Agreement has worked in most cases satisfactorily, I believe that at this moment of time it may well be necessary to include in the legislation an amendment such as that which has come from the other place. This is not a matter of mere party polemics, but it involves sensible compensation to ordinary people. I could refer to three cases on which appeals have gone to the Minister. Those cases involved ordinary householders who had no rights in respect of consequential damage and who were unable to meet the costs incurred by subsidence to their homes.
With those few remarks I urge the Minister to be sensible, to have second thoughts and to take the initiative and tell his advisers that the arguments of the House were strong enough to persuade him that at this late stage it made sense to accept their Lordships' amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. George Park: I should like to add briefly my note of concern to those already voiced by my colleagues from Coventry. I appreciate that there is a clash of national interest in the matter before the House tonight. We need coal in ever-greater quantities. However, it is equally true that the activities of the companies referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman) are also in the national interest.
I first became involved in this subject as the city councillor for the area referred co by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West. I had to initiate long-drawn-out negotiations at regular intervals with the National Coal Board to make good in some cases the severe damage done to hundreds of houses in the area—damage which included cracks in walls, doors that would not open and windows that were stuck.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said that the board was dynamic, I first had to prise it loose from the idea that council tenants in Coventry had not got beyond the idea that their living rooms were white-washed. That is where we started and at regular intervals this had to be examined again and again.
The workings have now extended under my constituency and I believe that there is little point in re-activating and re-tooling companies such as Alfred Herbert if, as a result of other work by the National Coal Board, they are prevented from getting on with the work that is so urgently needed by machine tool firms.
It should also be noted that because of the delicacy of work done at one company the city council reconsidered a road scheme because it was felt that the vibrations from vehicles would upset the work being done. Here we have a situation in which the local authority has already had extensive trouble over these matters and in which industry is constantly concerned about it. If the Minister cannot reconsider this situation, I shall have no option but to join my colleauges in the Lobby to vote against the motion.

Mr. Adam Butler: To try to improve compensation for the victims of mining subsidence has been a crusade of mine for some few years, even before I became a Member of Parliament—indeed, when I first became associated with my constituency. Therefore, I am happy to join in the debate, if briefly.
I must draw the Minister's attention to four basic points. I know him to be an understanding and sympathetic man and I hope that, having listened to all the points made by others, some of which I shall underline, and the points which I shall make, he will reconsider this matter.
My first point relates to the line up of those who are in favour of the Lords Amendment. Apart from the majority of their Lordships—and I was interested to hear what Labour Members have said—the Coventry City Council as well as the old Urban District Councils Association spoke strongly on this matter. I am sure that the Minister has read the 13 points which were passed as a resolution at the 1969 conference. I believe that the other local authority associations also feel strongly about this. The line-up is powerful.
My second point concerns the discretion of the National Coal Board. We all know from experience over the past few years that the board has chosen to interpret the 1957 Act generously. The local liaison committees between the area offices and the district councils have

worked well. In the past two or three years I have received very few, if any, complaints about wrong treatment as a result of mining subsidence damage. But that can change with the economic situation. Already the board is rightly determined to undermine where it has not undermined before. For the same reasons of economy it could well revert to the strict provisions of the 1957 Act. That is why we must legislate now to improve the compensation provisions.
Thirdly, I should like to think that the review will be produced as quickly as possible. I am sure that that promise was given as sincerely as the Minister could give it. But in December 1972 my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), then a Minister in the Trade and Industry Department, said in reply to a Question that I put to him:
The review is nearing completion and I hope to be able to make a statement in the near future."—[Official Report, 4th December 1972; Vol 847, c. 289.]
That was two and a half years ago. The Minister wrote me a nice letter after the Second Reading debate, because he was not able to deal with the subject then, and he made the same promises. I fear that the review will be an old man before it reaches the cradle. We cannot wait for it.
My fourth point is the one that should command the most attention. We should pay fair compensation to those who work in the industry and to those who suffer as a result of it. Wage rates and payments for miners are not a matter for us to debate tonight. But there is a close relation between the provisions for pneumoconiosis compensation and mining subsidence compensation, because both are for sufferers. We all welcome Clause 1, because of what it does for the victims of pneumoconiosis. They have suffered, and are suffering, as a result of coal mining. On this amendment from their Lordships, we are debating other sufferers from mining. Those people are not receiving the full compensation that they deserve. They need compensation for consequential damage. That is why I support my hon. Friends and look for support for the amendment from the Labour benches.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I have not for a long time heard


such falsity as I have heard tonight from the Opposition. Before the nationalisation of the mines there was no talk of compensation for subsidence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or pneumoconiosis."] The Conservatives never appreciated what happened to the miners as a result of pneumoconiosis, but that is another point.
We are told that compensation must he paid by the coalmining industry, whatever its profits are, to people affected by subsidence. I have no objections to the principle. Let us bear in mind that people are reluctant to build new factories and plants in coalmining areas. No matter how one prepares underground with packing material, about one-third to two-thirds lowers and affects the surface. The slightest deviation can cause a tremendous upset to sophisticated, automated machinery on the surface. Therefore, industry is always reluctant to come to mining areas. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler) knows that.
But before the nationalisation of the mines the Conservatives did not trouble about compensation. Houses could be wrecked and it did not matter. After nationalisation, Conservatives became interested and brought the matter to the fore. Of course it matters to the individuals who are affeced, but what shocks me about Opposition Members is that they are mute and quiet unless the argument is against a nationalised industry. Now that the mines are nationalised they become vociferous.
The country requires coal, and the Opposition try to put all the responsibility on the coalmining industry. They are trying to ruin the nationalised industry. Is it their intention to sterilise many areas where the coal that the nation needs exists? They are encouraging people not to build concrete rafts and not to prepare against subsidence by proposing that compensation should be payable.
I have no objection to the payment of compensation, but if Opposition Members want to make it impossible for the industry to be viable and productive, that is the way to do it. That is what they seek to do because they are so much against nationalised industry. Before nationalisation there were no arguments about the cost of subsidence. Since nationalisation more compensation has been paid to owner-occupiers because of

damage to houses than ever before, and rightly so.
If, in spite of what industrialists do to try to make certain that the factory floor is safeguarded against subsidence, subsidence occurs, I agree that the National Coal Board should be responsible. But if we are seeking to make the coalmining industry unprofitable and non-viable let us accept the amendment.
If the nation requires miners to go below ground to mine coal, and if it wants a profitable coalmining industry, the nation must be prepared to pay for it. Let us not saddle the industry with all the faults we can find and all the misguided ideas of people who are not miners. Everyone knows that in building houses and factories preparations must be made to prevent subsidence, but there will be subsidence no matter how much packing is done below ground.
Let us not sterilise great areas of coal. It is not just the area of coal that matters. The angle of subsidence stretches out, so that there can be 10 acres of coal and 30,000 or 40,000 acres involved.
I hope that Opposition Members will not be too partisan on this issue and will be fair and just in their arguments, and make certain that they do not saddle too great a responsibility on the coalmining industry. If they do they will sterilise great areas of coal in this country which otherwise could be worked.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Eadie: I should like to attempt to reply to the debate. I do not challenge the sincerity or integrity of any hon. Gentleman who has spoken. With regard to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Edelman), I would say to him and his other hon. Friends that I shall seek to persuade them by argument that they should not go into the lobbies and vote against the proposition which I presented to the House.
I tried to assure my hon. Friend in the course of his remarks that the Robens Agreement still applied so far as Coventry is concerned. It is no use saying that the agreement is not worth very much when it has been honoured right up to this very day. We are discussing the question of compensation, and I know how sincere and compassionate he


feels about the city that he represents. Compensation in itself would not solve the problem of Coventry cathedral, and we are discussing today the issue of compensation—not just compensation but compensation arising from subsidence.
There are no changes of substance proposed in the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) mentioned rights, I can assure him that there is no change of rights in relation to this Bill. I hope to demonstrate how the Government propose to meet precisely the points raised in the course of the debate. I shall try to do it by argument and by persuasion.
There was what I considered to be a debating point made about the length of time taken by the committee. I think it was the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) who, in a very fair contribution, made the point that he was the Minister involved in 1972 and that he had been concerned about the activity of the interdepartmental working group. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken with great compassion and concern, but if they want to make this a debating point, the House is entitled to ask what they were doing all the time in Government in respect of all these anomalies with which we are faced at the present time. There was very powerful criticism of the working of the interdepartmental working party, but if there were so many burdens imposed on people, the Opposition have done nothing about them. The hon. Member in the course of the debate made a point about the delay in relation to the working party. Indeed, the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who led for the Opposition, made some rather scathing comments about the interdepartmental working party and the time that it has taken. I hope that he will concede if he is to raise the question of the time that it has taken and the lethargy of this Government, that it is equally fair that I should make the debating point that the Conservative Government had a long time in which to do something but in fact did nothing about bringing the whole matter to fruition.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I do not want the hon. Gentleman's blood pressure to rise any faster. I made it clear that

three Governments, including a Conservative Government, were involved in this. I am not criticising. It is not a party issue. It is lethargy or inertia, but it is not a party political issue.

Mr. Eadie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my blood pressure is fairly normal. However, it was right for me to put the reverse of the debating point which he made.
The hon. Gentleman said that I brushed aside the Opposition's argument. We debated this matter extensively in Committee. We gave it a long run. It was a constructive debate, and it is on the record.
I deal now with the activities of the working party, and I address myself especially to those of my hon. Friends who attached some importance to it. The report of the interdepartmental working party, completed last summer, was withdrawn for review so that account could be taken of new evidence and opinions expressed during the preparation of the Coal Industry Bill and its passage through Parliament. All this time, a great deal of study has been going on in the Department and, as soon as the major stages of the Bill were completed and most of the new evidence could be considered as having been presented—although I must inform the House that we are still waiting for a memorandum promised by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—meetings of the working group were resumed.
Following intensive discussion with the National Coal Board, a meeting of the full group was held on 18th June, and a further meeting is to take place on Friday next. It is expected that the group will be able to finalise its report before the end of the Summer Recess. The House can be assured that the Government will lose no time in coming to their own conclusions, and an early opportunity will be sought to introduce such legislation as may be required.
It would be wrong to leave the clause to stand in its amended form meantime. It would upset completely the present balance—unfairly against the National Coal Board—and it would introduce for many people uncertainty and confusion while the new regime settled down. Then we would have another change when the


more comprehensive and long-term solution came into effect.
An interim arrangement of that sort is precisely not what is required at present. We want to try to resolve the problem thoroughly and fairly and to give the House an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend has been putting the case for the committee on compensation very fairly and properly. But I put it to him, I hope without irony, that he ought perhaps to consider the deliberations of the Standing Committee as having more significance and weight than even the deliberations of an interdepartmental committee, however meritorious it may be. We are applying ourselves to this matter of compensation in relation to this legislation. Why should that have less validity than the protracted deliberations of an interdepartmental committee of civil servants?

Mr. Eadie: The answer to that is quite easy. This is a complicated matter, as the debate has shown. There is some confusion among hon. Members. In such a situation it is right for the Government to say that they will examine the proposition through an inter-departmental committee and consult those involved. We shall consult the agencies and bodies involved. This is the fair way to deal with the matter, and it certainly does not denigrate the House.
I do not think that the Opposition can object, because that is exactly what they put forward. The subject needs study and consultation with those who are qualified to speak on it. The hon. Member for New Forest referred to the circular from the National Farmers' Union. I have studied that letter. It is full of hypothetical examples but singularly lacking in concrete examples of farmers

who have suffered losses as a result of subsidence for which they were not compensated. It completely ignores the fact that it is the board's practice often to go well beyond its statutory liability. Because of this there has been little cause for complaint over the years.

This letter makes no reference to the comprehensive agreement which the National Coal Board has made with the NFU about the Selby area. I wish that the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) would be a little more excited about this new development. It is wealth for this country. I described it in Committee as a miniature North Sea oil find which will mean great riches not only for the area but for all our people. We have agreements with the NFU covering such things as crop loss, loss of livestock, permanent depreciation of land value and so on. Farmers can feel confident that their legitimate claims will be met until a more comprehensive and overall solution, equitable to all, can be worked out.

It has been said that the NFU was unable to negotiate agreements with the National Coal Board. I have here the agreement on the Selby coalfield dated March 1975, not 15th July. It deals with the negotiations between the board and the NFU. There are six or seven paragraphs of negotiated agreements between these two bodies. The Government's arguments can be accepted by the House because they show that what the Government are proposing is a sensible and realistic solution in the best interests of all. We shall come forward later with a proposition to solve the problem properly rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 129.

Division No. 284.]
AYES
[12.00 midnight


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dempsey, James


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Doig, Peter


Bishop, E. S.
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand. J. D.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Albert
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Dunn, James A.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Corbett, Robin
Dunnett, Jack


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
English, Michael


Brown,, Ronald (Hackney S)
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, John (Newton)




Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Stallard, A. W.


George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr John
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Golding, John
Marquand. David
Stott, Roger


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs. Millie (Ilford N)
Tomlinson, John


Hardy, Peter
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen)
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Urwin, T. W.


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Howell, Denis (B'ham Sm H)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley
Ward, Michael


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Watkinson, John


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David
Weetch, Ken


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, Arthur
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartlord)
Parry, Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kinnock, Neil
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Leadbitter, Ted
Roper, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rose, Paul B.



Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Loyden, Eddie
Ryman, John
Mr. Laurie Pavitt


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sandelson, Neville





NOES


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Baker, Kenneth
Gray, Hamish
Mudd, David


Banks, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Nelson, Anthony


Beith, A. J.
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hannam, John
Pardoe, John


Body, Richard
Hawkins, Paul
Park, George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Penhaligon, David


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brotherton, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies. W. R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buck, Antony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Burden, F. A.
Knight, Mrs Jill
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Carlisle, Mark
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton William (Streatham)


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


Cope, John
Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Edelman, Maurice
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)



Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Elliott, Sir William
Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Farr, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Freud, Clement
Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Trotter, Neville







Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hon George


Viggers, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry



Wakeham, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wall, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Adam Butter and


Warren, Kenneth
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Action)
Mr. Spencern Le Marchant

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

RIGHT OF BOARD TO WORK COAL IN FORMER COPYHOLD LAND

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 6, line 16, leave out from "pay" to "compensation" in line 17.

Mr. Eadie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this it might be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 3, in page 6, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(5) Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act shall have effect for supplementing the provisions of this section.
No. 4, in page 6, line 37, leave out
the owner of a retained interest
and insert "any person"
No. 5, in page 6, line 39, leave out from "reasonable" to end of line 43 and insert:
valuation expenses incurred by him for the purpose of ascertaining the value, at the date referred to in subsection (4) above, of the retained interest to which the compensation relates".
No. 6, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—
() Subject to paragraph 9 of Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act, the service of a notice under subsection (2) above shall not prevent the Board from acquiring by agreement any retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under land in the area to which the notice relates.
No. 7, in page 7, line 10, at beginning insert "(a)"
No. 8, in page 7, line 13, leave out "that land" and insert:
so much of that land as consists of that coal or mine of coal".
No. 9, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—
and
(b) in so far as notice of a retained interest which is given as mentioned in subsection (3)(b)

above at a time when the Board as so entitled relates to a retained interest in any land in or under which that coal or mine of coal is comprised or lies, for the purposes of determining the amount of any compensation payable under subsection (4) above, that interest shall be treated as not subsisting in that coal or mine of coal.
No. 10, in page 7, line 15, after "section" insert:
and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act".
No. 11, in page 7, line 23, after "section" insert:
and Schedule (Retained interests: notices and compensation) to this Act".
No. 15, in page 17, line 49, after Schedule 1 at end insert new Schedule A—

SCHEDULE

RETAINED INTERESTS: NOTICES AND COMPENSATION

1. The provisions of this Schedule apply where a person (in this Schedule referred to as "the claimant") gives to the Board notice of a retained interest as mentioned in section 3(3)(b) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as a "retained interest notice").

2.—(1) Together with a retained interest notice given by him to the Board the claimant shall furnish to the Board adequate proof of his title to the interest at the time the notice is given.

(2) Within the period of three months beginning on the date on which the Board receive a retained interest notice or within such longer period as may be agreed between the Board and the claimant the Board shall serve on the claimant either—

(a) a notice in the prescribed form accepting his title to the retained interest and acknowledging the obligation of the Board to pay compensation in respect of it under section 3 of this Act; or
(b) a notice rejecting the claimant's retained interest notice;
and in this Schedule a notice under paragraph (a) above is referred to as an "acceptance notice" and a notice under paragraph (b) above is referred to as a "rejection notice".

(3) A rejection notice shall specify the ground or grounds on which the Board reject the claimant's retained interest notice.

3. Subject to paragraph 5 below, as soon as practicable after the Board have served an acceptance notice on a claimant, the Board shall pay to the claimant any reasonable legal expenses incurred by him for the purposes of



(a) establishing his ownership of the retained interest to which the acceptance notice relates; and
(b) giving the retained interest notice by virtue of which the acceptance notice came to be served.

4. Subject to paragraph 5 below, where, after the receipt of a retained interest notice, the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest concerned, the service of that acceptance notice shall be a valid ground for the service of a rejection notice in respect of any other retained interest notice received by the Board after the first-mentioned notice and relating to any of the land in which subsists the retained interest in respect of which the acceptance notice was served.

5.—(1) A claimant who—

(a) has served a retained interest notice relating to any land (in this paragraph referred to as "the relevant land"); and
(b) is aggrieved by the service on him of a rejection notice relating to his retained interest notice, other than a rejection notice served pursuant to an order under this paragraph,
may, within the period of 3 months beginning on the date of service of the rejection notice make an application to the county court for an order directing the Board to withdraw the rejection notice and to serve an acceptance notice in respect of the retained interest which he claims.

(2) On an application under this paragraph, the court may direct that, in addition to the applicant and the Board, any other person who has given a retained interest notice relating to the whole or part of any of the relevant land shall be made a party to the application unless—

(a) the Board have already served a rejection notice in respect of that person's retained interest notice; and
(b) the time within which he might have made an application under this paragraph in respect of that rejection notice has expired without such an application having been made.

(3) On an application under this paragraph the court shall determine whether—

(a) the applicant, or
(b) any other party to the application who contests the applicant's claim, or
(c) any other person (whether a party to the application or not) on whom the Board have served an acceptance notice relating to the whole or any part of the relevant land,
was at the time he gave his retained interest notice entitled to a retained interest in the whole or any part of the relevant land and shall order the Board (so far as they have not already done so) to serve an acceptance notice on that person or, if more than one of them were so entitled to a retained interest in the same piece of land, on that one of them whose retained notice was given first.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3) above may contain such provisions as the court consider appropriate to secure—

(a) that a rejection notice is or has been served on every party to the application (other than the Board) on whom an acceptance notice is not ordered to be or has not been served; and
(b) that, where it appears to the court that an acceptance notice has been served which should not have been served, that notice is cancelled and that the Board bring the cancellation to the notice of the person who, if the notice had not been cancelled, would for the time being have been entitled the receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of the interest to which the acceptance notice related.

(5) If, in accordance with sub-paragraph (4) above, the court orders the cancellation of an acceptance notice, it shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of section 3 of this Act and of the provisions of this Schedule other than this paragraph—

(a) that the person on whom the acceptance notice was served did not have a retained interest in the relevant land at the time he served his retained interest notice; and
(b) that the Board served a rejection notice in respect of that retained interest notice.

(6) Nothing in paragraph 3 above shall affect the power of the court on an application under this paragraph (or in any subsequent proceedings) to make such order as to costs as it thinks fit; and any such order may make such modifications, if any, of the Board's obligation under paragraph 3 above as appear to the court to be just in the light of the other provisions as to costs contained in the order.

6. The person having the right to receive compensation under section 3(4) of this Act in respect of a retained interest to which an acceptance notice relates shall be the person on whom that notice was served, notwithstanding that he may not own the retained interest at the time when the compensation becomes payable and, accordingly, that right shall devolve on his death and may be assigned in like manner as the right of a creditor under an unsecured debt.

7. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 6 above, if, at the time at which compensation becomes payable in respect of a retained interest, the Board pay compensation in good faith to the person who produces the acceptance notice relating to that interest, the surrender of that notice to the Board by way of receipt for the compensation shall constitute an adequate discharge to the Board of their liability to pay that compensation, without any further proof that the person producing the acceptance notice is entitled in accordance with paragraph 6 above to receive the compensation.

8. If at any time—

(a) after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest. and


(b) before the date on which compensation becomes payable in respect of that interest,
the Board enter into an agreement in that behalf with the person who for the time being has the right to receive any such compensation, then, on payment to that person of such consideration as may be agreed, the Board shall be relieved of any contingent liability under subsection (4) or subsection (6) of section 3 of this Act in respect of that retained interest; and where any such agreement is entered into, paragraph 7 above shall apply in relation to the payment of the consideration agreed as it applies in relation to a payment of compensation at the time referred to in that paragraph.

9. Without prejudice to paragraph 8 above, at any time after the Board have served an acceptance notice in respect of a retained interest, they shall cease to be entitled to acquire by agreement that interest or any other retained interest in coal or a mine of coal comprised in or lying under any of the land in which subsists the retained intrest to which the acceptance notice relates.

10.—(1) The Board shall keep, at such places as may be prescribed, a record of—

(a) all retained interest notices given to the Board and all acceptance notices and rejection notices served by them, and
(b) all sums paid by way of compensation under section 3(4) of this Act,
and that record shall contain a description of the land in which subsists the retained interest (or in the case of a rejection notice, the claimed retained interest) to which each such notice or payment relates sufficient to enable the land to he identified.

(2) The record kept under this paragraph shall be open to public inspection at all reasonable hours, and different places may be prescribed for the keeping of the record relating to retained interests in different areas.

11. Section 55 of the Coal Act 1938 (service of notices, etc.) shall have effect as if the provisions of this Schedule were included in that Act."

Mr. Eadie: These amendments, including the new schedule, set out a procedure for dealing with notices of retained interest in former copyhold land and payment of the relevant compensation and for the settlement of disputes.
In order to meet the Opposition an amendment was made at the Report stage to provide that compensation to owners of retained interests shall be paid when the NCB begins to mine the coal under the land in question rather than when they first give notice of intention to do so. But complications might arise

during the period before the compensation comes to be assessed and paid, for example through changes of ownership in the land. The procedure introduced by these amendments is designed to overcome them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION RELATING TO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW SUPPORT

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 16, line 6, leave out "(a)".

Mr. Eadie: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to take the following Lords amendments:
No. 13, in page 16, line 7, leave out from "provision" to "as" in line 9 and insert "or".
No. 14, in page 17, line 15, leave out from "obligation" to "Any" in line 16 and insert "and".

Mr. Eadie: These amendments transfer jurisdiction in disputes about whether or not a liability exists, for the extra costs of building precautions against subsidence which may be specified by the NCB, from an arbitrator to the Lands Tribunal. Such disputes will then be on all fours with disputes about the amounts payable.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Dormand. Mr. Eadie, Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, Mr. Hannam; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Benn.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 18

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

12.15 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 13, line 4, after 'conferred', insert
'on the Secretary of State'.

Mr. Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we taking the amendments together? If we are I should like to reserve our position on the second amendment in relation to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): If the House would like to take them together, I agree.

Dr. Summerskill: These are drafting amendments. In Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked for confirmation of his assumption that the removal of the reference to negative resolution procedure, from Clause 1 of the earlier Bill to Clause 17, now Clause 18, of the present Bill, was a drafting change. That is so, but on re-examining Clause 18 we noticed two anomalies which call for attention. The first is that it might have been assumed that an order of the court under the emergency procedure in Clause 10 would be covered by the provision in Clause 18 (1). This requires an order or regulation under the Bill to be exercisable by statutory instrument. That is not the intention, so the first amendment makes it clear that only orders or regulations made by the Secretary of State are in view.
The second anomaly is that a commencement order by the Secretary of State, bringing the Bill, or part of it, into force would have been subject to the negative resolution procedure. That would be unusual, and the second amendment is therefore designed to restore the normal practice.

Mr. Monro: I have no comment to make on Amendment No. 1. I see the Lords' arguments and accept them.
I am not so clear on Amendment No. 2, in that, at face value, it seems to be a major change from our understanding of the position which, as the hon. Lady confirmed, I raised in Committee in relation to the amendment now on the Order Paper, on the general question why it had been transferred to a different clause.
My understanding of the Bill as it now is, and as it has been discussed three times in both Houses, is that if there were an order under it, we would have an opportunity to pray against it.
I accept that this would not be so in relation to something with the special arrangements, but where, for instance, we are to have in the forthcoming months, or perhaps years, an order relating to English Third and Fourth Division clubs and Scottish First and Second Division clubs, under this new amendment that could be done, so far as I can see, without laying a statutory instrument against which a Prayer could be laid so that the whole House had an opportunity to discuss it.
I am surprised at this amendment and wonder when, and for what reasons, a statutory instrument could be laid and prayed against in the House under the new wording of Clause 18. It refers to Clause 19(6), which gives the Secretary of State power to bring orders into force without discussion in this House.
This is a very important change. All hon. Members interested in the Bill wanted the opportunity of discussing not the designation orders, which will come forward fairly soon, but the future changes in the operation of the measure which will bring in other sports grounds.
Is my interpretation correct? If the Government decide to bring in the English Third and Fourth Division clubs and the Scottish First and Second Division clubs, will there be an opportunity to discuss the order in the House? If not, this is a fundamental change.

Dr. Summerskill: The normal practice is being adhered to in this amendment. We are certain that what is in the Bill as it stands is an anomaly. A commencement order bringing the Bill, or part of


it, into operation, would have been subject to negative resolution, which would have been unusual. An order under Clause 19(6) merely brings the Act into force so that designation orders may be made under Clause 1. An order under Clause 19(6) is purely formal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 13, line 10, after 'Act', insert
'(except an order under section 19(6) below)'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Order for Third Reading read—

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Monro: This is the end of a long saga, and I am glad that the Bill will, in due course, receive its Third Reading. It will be of great value to spectators and players of many sports in this country.
A similar Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1973 but, because of various electoral reasons, it has taken fully two years to become law. It has been improved during the period of consultation, and clubs will gain from the financial provisions that the Minister of Sport has obtained from the Pools Promoters' Association. Perhaps the Minister can give us more details of the scheme worked out with the PPA.
The key issue now affecting the sports grounds to be designated is when the operative date will be announced. It is to be announced in a period of unparalleled inflation, and when building costs are at a peak. The point has been made in our debates that clubs must have reasonable time to carry out negotiations with local authorities. We must bear in mind that it will be very difficult to carry out ground improvements before August 1976. I hope that reasonable attention will be given to this matter by the Government, because naturally building operations can be done only in the summer months and very little can be achieved during the playing season. Will the Under-Secretary tell us something about the timing? This is of

interest to the House but it is also crucial to getting things under way on the grounds themselves.
I hope that the Minister can say a little about the special certificate procedure. Judging by what was said by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, at column 11 in Standing Committee, it seems that these provisions could come into operation next week. He said that the procedure would be operative very shortly after the Bill received the Royal Assent, and that event must be imminent after tonight. This will not affect football grounds, but it could affect show grounds or other temporary stands and sporting facilities.
Do the local authorities have at their disposal the information required to operate the Bill in the very near future? I take it from what the Under-Secretary said that we might have to have a statutory instrument to bring the designation order into effect. I hope that she can confirm that the local authorities will be able to cope with this situation from the beginning of August.
I hope, too, that she will re-emphasise the grave concern felt by all hon. Members who have been involved in the Bill that local authorities should be flexible in implementing it and that she will give the detailed briefing of the steps that have to be taken. Nobody would wish to tolerate dangerous grounds for a day longer than necessary, and such grounds may require action to be taken in the next few months. Grounds which do not suffer from serious design defects or fire hazards, however, should be permitted a reasonable period in which to put their grounds in order, and that could take 12 months.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland kindly and courteously sent me a letter today setting out the views of the Scottish Office on licensing. I welcome what he has to say, because it seems that with the best of intentions the Government would like to see the Wheatley proposal carried out, in that the top tier will be doing the licensing. That is what is later confirmed, and it is also confirmed in local government legislation. It is possible, however, for the top tier to delegate authority to the lower tier. That would be contrary to the wishes of the Wheatley Report. I am not happy about that. However, I must reserve my judgment and hope that it works out


better in practice than I fear may be the case, for the very reason that Lord Wheatley wishes the responsibility to be with the top tier and not the lower tier.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Robert Hughes): As regards delegation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it will be necessary for guidance to go out to the authorities. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. We shall be stressing to the authorities the importance of the Bill. I am sure that bearing in mind the history of the Bill—its genesis, in a sense, being the Ibrox disaster—the local authorities will take their statutory duties very seriously. I have no doubt that they will take into consideration what has been said about delegation. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will find that he is happier than he thinks he is at the moment.

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman not only for what he has said but for being here to participate in this debate.
Another point that I must put to the hon. Lady is that in our discussion on Clause 2 we raised the possible difficulty as regards keeping records of attendances at major grounds that are sometimes used for small matches which bring in minimal gates. It seemed unnecessary that accurate records should be kept if only 200 or 300 people attended a schoolboy match or a match at which no gate money was taken. Under the strict terms of the Bill the governing body will have to keep an accurate record. That may cause a lot of unnecessary work and expense. I hope that either through local authority approval or by agreement with the Government there will he a dispensation when only a small gate is anticipated. Towards the end of our discussions in Committee we talked about an economic fee. Have the Government come to any conclusion on what that might be?
It is disappointing that over the past couple of months there has been little publicity about the progress of the Bill. Certainly the large amount of correspondence that hon. Members on both sides of the House had at an earlier stage has died away. The Government must

bring home to football league clubs, national stadiums and the other grounds that may be affected, what is ahead of them in the near future. I hope that the apparent lack of interest, in terms of correspondence, does not mean a lack of interest by the clubs and a lack of thought over recent months. The clubs must appreciate that in the near future they will require licences, although whether they are to be implemented before August 1976 remains to be seen. It is no use the clubs sitting back and thinking that they have unlimited time ahead of them.
We all know how long it takes to obtain planning permission and to arrange contracts for the construction industry. Time is not on the side of the grounds which are to be designated. The Government must mount a strong publicity campaign to tell clubs what is in the Bill and what steps they must take in the near future.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said a few moments ago that the Bill stemmed, in the main, from the Ibrox disaster and other disasters. The Bill will not prevent with absolute certainty another tragedy, and certainly not a tragedy that arises from hooliganism or provocative behaviour, but it will go as far as is humanly possible to prevent the public being placed at risk. Behaviour inside and outside grounds is a matter for discussion on another occasion, and is perhaps more urgent than some aspects of the Bill, but we wish this legislation well. Interpretation is all-important and the Government bear heavy responsibility to see that the measure is implemented fairly by local authorities.
I hope that the hon. Lady will say a few words in reply to the debate, which no doubt will continue a little longer, since other hon. Members wish to take part. I assure her that we wish the Bill well and hope that its provisions are implemented speedily and satisfactorily.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: During the Second Reading debate the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, announced—rather as though he were a conjurer pulling a white rabbit from his hat—that he had received £650,000 from the pools promoters. All they wanted in return was to conduct a


spot-the-ball competition. When the approbation from all sides of the House had died down, I pointed out to the Minister that the competition had been deemed to be illegal.
I sought assurances in respect of the £650,000—which is a substantial sum for sports clubs, but which is a very small sum indeed for pools promoters. I wanted more details about the munificent sum which the Government were to contribute, and the Minister began his remarks in time-honoured fashion by saying:
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) sounded so churlish when people who, as far as I know, are conducting a lawful enterprise make an offer of this sort.
He ended by saying:
I assume that this competition is continuing lawfully. If anybody thinks that it is not he will no doubt take the appropriate action in the courts."—[Official Report, 19th tune 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1799.]
Are we expected to believe that the Government are accepting a sum of £650,000 from the pools promoters when they are merely assuming that the competition is to continue lawfully? If the pools promoters follow the course of including in their advertisements the words, "An amount of 25 per cent. or 33 per cent. has been retained for expenses, profit and taxes", it can be calculated that the sum in question is very small indeed.
I wish to remind the House of the illegality of the spot-the-ball competitions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in full flow, but I am anxious to understand to which provision in the Bill he is relating this argument.

Mr. Freud: I was hoping, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not ask me that. This was a promise which was made by the Minister. If the Government announce in the House something that seems to all of us to be financial generosity towards sports clubs, we should have a right to know against what this generosity is being distributed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that my generosity has now been fulfilled towards him? He has made his point. As it is Third Read-

ing I am obliged, though it may be unfortunate, to require hon. Members to talk about what is in the Bill.

Mr. Freud: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am constantly bowled over by your generosity, no less today than usual. I shall no longer pursue this argument; I shall simply ask the hon. Lady, taking into account the Second Reading debate and the announcement made by her hon. Friend, to allay the suspicions of my hon. Friends that this is not bribery.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I do not wish to detain the House at this early hour of the morning, but before we conclude the Third Reading I should like some clarification of a point that I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. There will be some confusion when the Bill is on the statute book and when the owners of sports stadia are asked to enact the legislation.
The main point about which I ask the hon. Lady concerns the certification of sports stadia with capacities in excess of 10,000. The debate two or three weeks ago largely centred around football grounds. I should like to know exactly what the Government envisage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) so aptly said, we want flexibility in the enforcement of legislation. There will be some confusion among the sports stadia owners who erect temporary stands and, perhaps, among the cricketing and rugby football fraternities—in fact, the entire sphere of all sporting activities. All the sports stadia owners must be fully conversant with what is expected of them. I hope that there can be some clarification.
I certainly do not wish to criticise the Minister with responsibilities for sport, who led the Government's argument on Second Reading, but there was some confusion both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. I hope that the Government will make it quite clear exactly what their responsibilities are for the great temporary sporting occasions and for those other sporting grounds which are capable of holding spectators in excess of 10,000. It is important that that is spelt out for all those people.

12.43 a.m.

Dr. Summerskill: As a result of the careful study which this Bill has received during our earlier proceedings, a number of drafting amendments have been made. These do not call for any special mention except that our thanks are due to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for the two amendments which have just been made on Report. Had he not drawn our attention to a procedural point in connection with regulations and orders made under the Bill, we might not have noticed the anomalies which have now been removed.
The principal change in the Bill is the addition of Clause 13, on civil liability. As my hon. Friend explained in Committee, in moving the addition of this clause, its main purpose is to make clear that the status quo is preserved. Nothing in the Bill, therefore, will affect the existing rights of a spectator injured at a football ground through the negligence of the occupier to bring an action at common law.
I should like to take up some of the specific points raised this evening. First, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the record of attendance. Some concern was expressed in other stages of the Bill that under the provisions of Clause 2(3)(a) the local authority may require records of attendance of spectators to be kept. It was suggested that these were unnecessary where only a small gate was likely. On the other hand, it is a requirement under Clause 2(2)(a) that a safety certificate
shall specify the maximum number of spectators to be admitted to the stadium
and under Clause 2(2)(b) the local authority may also specify the maximum number to be admitted to any part of it.
The latter provision is particularly important where, for reasons of safety, there must be a strict limit on the numbers admitted to a particular stand or terrace. Records of attendance are important for the purposes of enforcement, but the power to require the keeping of records is exercised entirely at the discretion of the local authority concerned, I do not think that there is any reason why a club should not discuss with the local authority any problem that it may have over keeping records on a particular occasion. This is a part of the flexibility of the Bill which the hon. Gentleman rightly stressed. We shall

mention this point in the guidance which we shall be circulating to local authorities on the Bill.
The intention is that local authorities should be able to recover costs by means of an economic fee, but this will vary from ground to ground. We cannot now give a precise estimate. The limit for fees will be prescribed by regulations under Clause 6(1)(b) in consultation with local authorities, and there will be publicity about this part of the Bill.
The Bill originates from the tragic incident at Ibrox Park. In the extensive consultations which followed Lord Wheatley's report, it was apparent that the proposals were fully supported by everybody involved. It is a fitting tribute to Lord Wheatley's work that the Bill so closely follows the principles that he laid down.
I should also like to pay tribute to the football and other sporting organisations, the police and the fire service, as well as all those concerned in central and local government, whose co-operation has resulted in what I believe is a useful and workmanlike Bill. It is also gratifying that the Bill will be supported by the non-statutory guide to safety at sports grounds, based on the technical appendix to Lord Wheatley's report and prepared in close consultation with the local authorities and the football authorities, among others.
Two similar Bills have not survived. We are grateful to the Opposition for the helpful and constructive way in which they have dealt with the present one.
Putting the Bill on the statute book will not automatically ensure the safety of football or any other sports grounds. The Bill is merely a means to an end. Vigorous action will be needed by the clubs and by central and local government alike to ensure that the purposes of the Bill are realised. I am sure that our publicity will help. Our intention is to bring the Bill into force as soon as possible, so that local authorities will at once have available to them their emergency powers, and so that my right hon. Friend will be able to make the first designation order as soon as the necessary consultations with the local authorities, the football authorities and the clubs concerned have been completed.
Local authorities have been kept in touch with the Bill throughout, and training seminars are already arranged for local authority representatives. They will be advised about all the provisions of the Bill once it is on the statute book.
Thereafter, it will be for each designated club to work in close co-operation with its local authority, so that all steps essential to the basic safety of spectators arc taken as soon as possible. Even where football and other sports stadia are not designated under the first order, I hope that the clubs or organisations concerned will take an early opportunity to consult their local authority on a voluntary basis, so that, for example, there may be forward planning for the occasional events when large numbers of spectators may be present.
I am well aware that the additional expenditure likely to be incurred by football clubs in respect of safety requirements under the Bill has been a matter of deep and continuing concern for everyone concerned. This is a problem to which the Government have been giving serious attention. That is why we have been concerned to ensure that the Bill will be flexible in operation and why we have taken the opportunity to introduce certain tax concessions.
We believe, in spite of the doubts which have been expressed, that the provisions of the Lotteries Bill will be of considerable help to the clubs. Indeed, the Government had the football clubs very much in mind in introducing the Lotteries Bill. The proposed increases in the present limits on turnover and prize money will enable the clubs to run lotteries on a scale estimated to yield an extra £2 million to £3 million a year. That estimate is based on present revenue, and the Football League clubs have accepted it.
Another considerable source of financial help will be the Football Grounds Improvement Trust, which, as my hon. Friend explained at an earlier stage, is being set up by the Pools Promoters' Association and is expected to have an initial income of about £650,000 a year.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dr. Summerskill: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Lady to raise a subject which I tried to raise and on which I was ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was a long time before I ruled the hon. Gentleman out of order. The hon. Lady will no doubt confine herself, as I asked the hon. Gentleman to confine himself, to the matters in the Bill, which means that she will not be able to answer the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps I may answer the hon. Gentleman after the debate, if he will see me later. I have a very good reply to his point. You are quite sure that I should be out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Once my attention is drawn to it I must play to the whistle and observe the rules. I am afraid that the hon. Lady must confine herself to what is in the Bill.

Dr. Summerskill: The Bill provides the basic plan and the necessary statutory powers. As I have indicated, there are some financial means available. What is now needed, however, is the will and determination of everybody involved to see that safety at football grounds and other grounds reaches as quickly as possible those standards which will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the danger of another Ibrox disaster is finally removed.

Mr. Freud: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the passing of the Third Reading is conditional upon the Pools Promoters' Association chipping in with £650,000, is it really not in order to raise this subject?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The passing of the Bill is conditional upon nothing but will of the House of Commons.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House do now adjourn.—[Pendry.]

IMMIGRATION

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am very glad to catch your eye even at this early hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after four unsuccessful attempts at the Ballot. Hon. Members are entitled to ask—and some have asked me—what is behind this debate. Am I moved by colour prejudice? Why should the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West, who presumably has very few immigrant constituents, want to speak on immigration statistics?
I want to try to answer those questions at the start, then to show the lack of relevant up-to-date statistics, and, finally, to point out the dangerous effect this has on community services and relations. I wish also to urge Her Majesty's Government to obtain at once all necessary information here and overseas, and meanwhile to halt immigration until that information is available and has been digested.
The answers to the questions which I pose are that I have no greater colour prejudice than the average, and less than many. I believe, however, that in England we are highly over-populated, and that if immigrants who are already here find difficulties over schooling, housing and generally being assimilated into the community—as they do—bringing in more immigrants will do great harm to race relationships and lead to coloured people being treated as second-class citizens, which I believe all of us wish to try to avoid.
As to the second question, hon. Members have national responsibilities as well as constituency responsibilities. I believe—and have ever since I have been in the House, since 1964—that this is a dangerous and growing national problem. In addition, I have many constituents, newly arrived in my area over the last few years, from districts where overcrowding is acute, and they themselves do not mince their words as to the dangers and their feelings when they, as they put it, were driven from their own home areas.
No one except the deaf, the blind and the prejudiced can say that there is no problem to solve. One has only to read the papers, walk the streets and watch the

classes of schoolchildren. As a nation we have acted as ostriches, pretending that if we shut our eyes this problem would go away. Well, it will not and it does not, and every month it becomes greater. Governments of all hues have acted far too late over this matter. The Conservative Government have been far more aware of the ordinary citizen's point of view, and the Labour and Liberal parties—who seem to be absent entirely—believe that all should be allowed to enter here regardless of the conditions in this country.
For a proper assessment of the problem—it is this that I have raised tonight—we need to know how many of each race are already here, where they are in England, and what their birth rates are. We must know how many people could come here, where they could come from, and what races would come here. Until we obtain these statistics, accurate and up to date, and examine them in relation to the country's housing and unemployment situation, I do not believe that we can devise policies to solve this growing problem, which I believe, is a great danger to the country.
For nearly a year now I have been corresponding with the Office of Population and Censuses, and later with the Home Secretary. I have files of papers, but I am little the wiser at the end of it. Perhaps it is my fault for not being able to read the statistics as they are published, but certainly the information that should be available is not, either as to numbers here, or how many are entitled to come here.
Last summer, I think in August, I was told that it would not be before the end of 1974 that certain information could be extracted from the 1971 Census. I also gather that information obtained in the 1971 Census will not be taken again at the next census. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm or deny this, and let us know whether all the information taken in the 1971 Census will be repeated and, perhaps, expanded.
A letter to me from the Home Office, signed by the Minister of State and dated 13th April, showed, in my opinion, such a lack of urgency and was so unsatisfactory that I decided to ask for this debate. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
I remain of the view that the Census provides us. and indeed local authorities, with


ample information about the size and distribution of the immigrant communities to allow local assessments of the needs of these communities—And plans to meet those needs—to be considered and drawn up.
He went on to deny the need for more details and the regular updating of estimates of those likely to come here.
It must be obvious that figures which are not available until three and a half years after the census and are based only on a 1 per cent. sample are useless to local authorities and Members of Parliament. How they can be of much use to the Home Office, as was said, I do not know. If there is to be no limit on the number entering each year and no requirement for an immigrant to state where he wants to go in England, how are the unfortunate councils, social workers and others to plan ahead?
These council difficulties were highlighted in an article in the Evening News of Monday, 30th June. It was headed:
Asian influx is council headache.
It described how Wandsworth Council for Community Relations appealed through the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) to the Home Secretary, asking him to ensure that the immigration department kept councils better informed about new arrivals. It was the influx of Kenyan Asians which led to this. The reported remarks continued:
… unless we are given estimates, we have no way of knowing how many families are coming to the borough and no chance to make arrangements …
Three years ago, Wandsworth, at the height of the influx of Ugandan Asians, was declared a "red" area because of the borough's housing and social problems. This is very alarming and proves that my demand for accurate, up-to-date statistics readily available is necessary.
On 25th January 1973, in a statement on immigration my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary said:
Our first responsibility as a Government is for the well-being of all the people in this country. No one should be in any doubt about our determination to discharge that duty through effective control over entry from overseas, through orderly arrangements for those whom we admit, and through the pursuit of positive policies to maintain and improve good community relations."—[Official Report, 25th January 1973; Vol 849, c. 656.]

I hope that the Minister of State can assure me that he and the Government also have the interests of all people as their first responsibility. I want to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems, has a plan to tackle them and, as a first step, will provide accurate, up-to-date and understandable statistics, so that Members of Parliament can debate this very important subject and can inform their constituents whether the problem is being tackled properly.

1.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) began by saying that he did not wish to introduce any racialist note into the debate. I am afraid that some of his introductory comments verged on that and tended to inflame such feelings. Some of his good points were lost completely in that kind of attitude and also in a misunderstanding of what is the nature of the rights of immigrants to this country.
In a country like Canada it is clear who is a Canadian citizen and who is not. If Canada wishes to accept immigrants it does so according to well-defined tests of the needs of Canada for new immigrants. In this country there has never been a clear definition of who is a British citizen. There will be by the time this Parliament has expired, because the Government intend to introduce such legislation. Until 1948 every person born anywhere in the British Empire was a British subject with complete and unrestricted right of entry to this country. Successive Governments since then have cut down those rights, but many remain. What is left is a residual commitment to people who had established rights at the time when they had some citizenship link with this country.
The two areas of immigration from the new Commonwealth—I noticed that the hon. Gentleman restricted all his remarks to new Commonwealth settlers—are from dependants of those who came here before 1st January 1973 and the East African Asian passport holders to whom we gave a commitment, at the time when East African countries became independent, that we would look after them if there was any difficulty. To


those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in just the same way as the hon. Gentleman and myself, and who hold British passports but are East African Asians, we have said that we shall allow them to come to this country if they obtain a voucher.
We have restricted the number of vouchers issued each year, so that they can come in an orderly way. The last Conservative Government raised the number to 3,500, and we have raised it this year to 5,000. The effect of that is that about 20,000 East African Asians are allowed to come here each year. In addition, in relation to dependants of those who came before 1st January 1973 there is an existing commitment to a substantial number of people who live in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, mainly the latter two countries. These are allowed to come to this country when they obtain an entry certificate.
There is a substantial delay in getting an entry certificate from one of the high commissions in the sub-continent. That delay under the last Conservative Government had extended to as much as four years before obtaining the first appointment. Often it was a total of seven to eight years before people got an entry voucher. I regard that as totally inhuman. We have done our best to increase the flow of people who have this right—a right preserved by the Conservative Government in their 1971 Act—to be allowed to join their husbands who live here, so that the family can be reunited. It is clear that both commitments are finite. There are only a certain number of East African Asian passport holders and only a certain number of dependants of people living here, necessarily restricted by the number of people who were allowed to come and settle here and work in the period before 1973.
It is not possible to define precisely what that number is. for obvious reasons, because a substantial number came before 1st January 1973, when no counting was done of new Commonwealth citizens who were allowed to enter. We have some estimate, but we have never disclosed what that estimate is, nor did any preceding Government, for obvious reasons.
Of course. not all the people who have this right will come. Apart from the issue

of vouchers to passport holders, we do not know how many will be processed in any one year. Last year 21,745 came in from the new Commonwealth. They comprised basically the two categories which I have already indicated. That was a slight drop on the preceding year—the last year of the Conservative Government—when 24,264 came in.
The average over preceding years has been of the order of 40,000. It will probably come back to 40,000 with the increases which we have made this year. But the 40,000 will not be in addition to those who had rights which existed before we came into office. Far from it. It will simply be draining the two pools faster than was otherwise intended. The result will be that when we have dealt with these two residual areas of migration. the problem—if it is a problem—of new Commonwealth immigration will virtually be completed, because the number of new males coming from the new Commonwealth for work was substantially reduced in 1964–65 by the Labour Government Therefore, all that we are now doing is honouring the commitments entered into by two previous Governments. We intend to honour those commitments as quickly as we can.
I turn now to the basic point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to urge upon the Government. He posed the question: if these people come to areas of this country without warning, how can local authorities plan for their reception? Again, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of our immigration control, as against, say, that of the Canadians. In Canada, as the whole thing is done by quotas, it is possible to define precisely who will come, when, and where they will go. These are people coming with rights. There is no way in which this country can apply to them an obligation to go to a particular area, nor, indeed, to say when and in what numbers they are to come. Therefore, no Government—neither the Conservative nor the preceding Labour Government—have been able to plan with the degree of accuracy that the hon. Gentleman wishes to put upon us now.
It will be possible, in the changed situation which will emerge after we have redefined citizenship and dealt with the two residual areas of migration that we have, to introduce an immigration law which


will allow us to do that. Indeed, I hope that we shall be able to do that. We shall then be able to plan and, I hope, prepare the migrant for rehabilitation in this country in a way that we have not been able to do before. But we cannot do it at the moment.
In four or five letters which I have written to the hon. Gentleman over the last six months I have tried to explain this point. I am afraid that I have not entirely succeeded in explaining it to him, but I hope that the House, at any rate, will accept that it is not possible to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes, desirable though it may be, at this stage of our immigration story.

Mr. Hawkins: How many years will it take before the pools are drained?

Mr. Lyon: I have already indicated publicly that it will be possible to end our commitment to East African passport holders, though not to passport holders living in India, by the end of this Parliament. It is not possible to give an accurate prognosis about the other main area of migration—dependants from the Indian sub-continent—because much depends on the speed with which we can process the applications. It is not as clear how many might be involved. I can foresee that within a reasonable period we shall have ended this area of migration.
The census figures give us the only true basis of planning, whatever our social planning. If the hon. Gentleman says that the figures are too outdated for use for immigration, they are too outdated for use for every other purpose. Yet they are the basic source of any planning material—housing, social services, social security, or any other area of social planning. There is no reason, therefore, why we should not use them, recognising the difficulties about updating, as the basis of our planning in relation to migration. Indeed, we do so.
It is possible to obtain from the Census a figure of how many new Commonwealth citizens are here. The 1971 Census indicated that there were about 1,486,000 here at that time, of whom about 1 million were born in the new Commonwealth, the remainder having been born here. Updating that with the figures which we have published about those horn in the United Kingdom, and

those who have come here since, as immigrants, the total should be about 1,731,000, of whom about 598,000 were born in this country, which is a little over one-third. A substantial number of those coloured people were born in this country and are therefore as British as the hon. Gentleman or myself. They have the greatest stake in the future, as the new Commonwealth population is comparatively young, without the elderly representatives which the rest of the population have. The proportion of births to the total number of new Commonwealth citizens here is comparatively high. Therefore the population is likely to increase to about three millioin by the middle of the 1980s.
Those people live in a comparatively small number of areas. As they become more familiar with the culture and background of this country, and as discrimination against them ceases, it is likely that they will move from these areas. Therefore, the problem of an intense concentration of new Commonwealth population is peculiar to something like 25 areas of this country, and is likely to exist for another 10 to 15 years, by which time dispersal should have begun in earnest.
We must plan to concentrate our resources into those areas over the coming few years. I am anxious that we should do so. I hope that I have an ally in the hon. Gentleman in seeking to persuade Governments that that is what they should do. I am convinced, as is the hon. Gentleman, that this country will face serious problems unless those difficulties are tackled at an early stage. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will do a service to race relations by trying to pretend that somehow we can easily dispose of this problem.
There is no quick solution. There are those who have suggested that we should send back the people who have come. As I have indicated, about one-third were born here, and of the other two-thirds a substantial number are now citizens of this country and could not in any sense be sent back, even if any Government were prepared to accept such an inhuman policy.
What is clear is that we now have a multi-racial society and we shall have it for the rest of our history. Therefore, we have to learn how to live as a multi-racial


society. That means that we have to give every black person the same rights as every white. We have to create a situation in which he can compete effectively with whites.
Most of the immigrants who have come in the last 20 years have come from relatively poor rural areas, and many of them are illiterate, even in their own language. If they are to compete effectively with those who are living here, even our own indigenous poor, it is essential that they should have given to them substantial resources, in order to bring them up at any rate to that level. That—sometimes called positive discrimination—is not giving anything special. It is merely correcting the disadvantage they suffer. Unless we correct it, there is a serious problem awaiting us—a problem that might be as

serious as anything that has occurred in the United States.
It is because I believe passionately that these people have to have fair and equal treatment that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do all that I can to insist that resources are made available. But at present it is a very difficult area in which to urge that upon government. When resources are available, I hope that the diversion will take place. I think that we have enough statistics to know where the people who need help are. What we need is the political will to ensure that they get it. If the hon. Gentleman's debate has contributed to that end, I am very grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjoured accordingly at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock